£ibrar;!P  of  trhe  trheolo^ical  ^eminarjo 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


•d^D* 


PRESENTED  BY 


John  Stuart  Conning,  D.D. 
BM  590  .H3  1906 
Hart,  Lewis  Alexander,  1847J 
A  Jewish  reply  to  Christian 
evangelists  _ 


A  Jewish  Re 


TO 


Christian  Evangelists 


BY 

LEWIS   A.  HART,  MA.,    B.C.L., 
NOTARY, 

Former  Lecturer  on  the  Theory  and  Practice  of  Notarial  Deeds 

and    Proceedings  in    the   Faculty    of  Law^ 

McGill  Universityy  Montreal. 


1906 

BLOCH  PUBLISHING   COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 


Copyright,   1906,  by  LEWIS  A.   HART 


Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall,  London,  England 
IPrinied  in  th4  United  States  0/  A  merica\ 


PREFACE 

The  articles  contained  in  this  book  were  written  as 
communications  to  The  Jewish  Times  of  Montreal,  and 
were  published  in  the  columns  of  that  paper;  the  six 
articles  entitled  "On  Christian  Attempts  to  Convert 
Jews,"  from  the  2d  February  to  the  13th  April,  1900; 


ERRATA 

Page  IX,  8th  line,  should  read  "  show  themselves  able  to 
establish,"  etc. 

Page  1 01,  4th  line,  should  read  "  revelations  ^/ the  Al- 
mighty." 

Page  107,  9th  line  from  bottom,  should  read  "  published 
in  your  paper,"  etc. 

Page  236,  ist  Hne,  should  read  "must  have  been  to  the 
birth  of  Jesus." 

Page  236,  4th  line,  should  read  "that  he  ivoi^M  over- 
come." 


ODjeCllUllctUiC   CApi  \^001»^xxo   ^^v^x^vw^— _      ^_ 

local  press  of  the  proceedings  at  meetings  of  the  Protes- 
tant Ministerial  Association  of  Montreal,  held  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  the  conversion  of  Jews,  which 
attracted  attention  and  made  some  response  necessary; 
and  the  letter  to  The  Jewish  Times  from  a  Protestant 


IV  PREFACE 


clergyman  who  took  an  active  and  prominent  part  at 
those  meetings,  mentioned  in  the  first  article.  The  sec- 
ond series  of  articles  was  written  in  consequence  of  the 
great  interest  that  was  shown  in  the  first  series;  and  the 
third  series  followed  another  letter  to  The  Times  from 
the  same  clergyman.  When  Christian  ministers  take 
to  writing  to  Jewish  newspapers  for  the  purpose  of  fur- 
thering their  proselytizing  schemes,  it  is  time  to  repel 
their  attacks. 

The  Christian  contention  is  that  there  are  three  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead— the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit — each  of  whom  has  his  own  separate  indi- 
viduality, and  may  not  be  confounded  with  cither  of  the 
other  two,  yet  has  an  equal  share  in  the  Di\ane  Nature, 
and  is  in  every  respect  co-equal  and  co-eternal  with  the 
others.  Unfortunately,  however,  for  this  fundamental 
claim  of  Christianity,  it  happens  that  One  of  these  three 
persons— He  whom  we  know  as  "The  Almighty,"  or 
"The  Eternal,"  and  whom  our  Christian  friends  distin- 
guish by  the  name  of  "The  Father  "—has  declared  that 
besides  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like 
Him,  and  no  one  else.  These  declarations  of  the  Eter- 
nal cover  the  whole  question  that  is  at  issue  between  the 
Jew  and  the  Christian;  and  we  invite  our  Christian 
friends  to  face  and  discuss  them  if  they  can. 

Hitherto  they  have  not  done  so.  It  has  been  a  char- 
acteristic of  Christian  EvangcHsts,  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  down  to  the  present  day,  to  evade  and  ignore 
the  many  declarations  made  by  the  Eternal,  that  besides 
Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  no  one  else.  Instead  of  devoting  their  attention  to 
those  declarations,  and  explaining  to  us  how  they  can  be 


PREFACE  V 

reconciled  with  and  be  made  to  establish  the  existence 
of  the  other  gods  and  the  other  saviour  whom  they  ask 
us  to  worship,  our  Christian  friends  have  given  us  noth- 
ing else  than  endless  repetitions  of  perversions  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  For  nearly  nineteen  centuries  the 
followers  of  Jesus  have  afflicted  us  with  arguments  that 
are  proofs  only  either  of  their  ignorance  of  those  script- 
ures or  of  their  want  of  honesty  in  religious  matters ; 
and  they  have  always  failed  to  influence  Jewish  belief, 
because,  among  other  reasons,  they  have  always  adopted 
a  line  of  argument  that  has  only  evoked  Jewish  contempt. 
The  reason  usually  given  by  Christian  Evangelists  for 
persisting  in  their  unavaiHng  efforts  to  procure  the  con- 
version of  Jews  to  Christianity  is  that  they  are  required 
to  bear  witness  for  Jesus.  But  it  may  be  suggested 
to  these  worthy  Christians  that  there  are  different  ways 
of  bearing  witness — some  that  are  creditable,  and  others 
that  are  not.  If  Christian  ministers  confined  their 
labors  at  testifying  for  Jesus  to  exhortations  from  their 
own  pulpits,  to  work  among  their  own  people,  or  even 
among  other  people  who  had  not  received  a  different 
mandate  from  a  Higher  Power,  they  might,  perhaps, 
claim  that  they  were  within  their  rights  in  what  they 
were  doing;  although  the  vaHdity  of  such  an  argument 
cannot  be  admitted  by  us,  because  the  sin  of  inculcating 
false  and  idolatrous  doctrines  remains  the  same,  whether 
they  be  preached  to  Jews  or  to  non-Jews.  But,  waiv- 
ing or  even  granting  them  that  point,  there  certainly  can 
be  no  more  justification  for  Christian  attempts  to  pros- 
elytize the  Jews  than  there  would  be  for  a  litigant  to 
bribe  and  suborn  the  witnesses  of  the  opposite  party  in 
a  lawsuit ;  or  for  the  rulers  of  a  country  or  the  generals 


IV  PREFACE 


clergyman  who  took  an  active  and  prominent  part  at 
those  meetings,  mentioned  in  the  first  article.  The  sec- 
ond series  of  articles  was  written  in  consequence  of  the 
great  interest  that  was  shown  in  the  first  series;  and  the 
third  series  followed  another  letter  to  The  Times  from 
the  same  clergyman.  When  Christian  ministers  take 
to  writing  to  Jewish  newspapers  for  the  purpose  of  fur- 
thering their  proselytizing  schemes,  it  is  time  to  repel 
their  attacks. 

The  Christian  contention  is  that  there  are  three  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead— the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit — each  of  whom  has  his  own  separate  indi- 
viduality, and  may  not  be  confounded  with  cither  of  the 
other  two,  yet  has  an  equal  share  in  the  Di\dne  Nature, 
and  is  in  every  respect  co-equal  and  co-eternal  with  the 
others.  Unfortunately,  however,  for  this  fundamental 
claim  of  Christianity,  it  happens  that  One  of  these  three 
persons— He  whom  we  know  as  "The  Almighty,"  or 
"The  Eternal,"  and  whom  our  Christian  friends  distin- 
guish by  the  name  of  "The  Father  "—has  declared  that 
besides  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like 
Him,  and  no  one  else.  These  declarations  of  the  Eter- 
nal cover  the  whole  question  that  is  at  issue  between  the 
Jew  and  the  Christian;  and  we  invite  our  Christian 
friends  to  face  and  discuss  them  if  they  can. 

Hitherto  they  have  not  done  so.  It  has  been  a  char- 
acteristic of  Christian  EvangcHsts,  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  down  to  the  present  day,  to  evade  and  ignore 
the  many  declarations  made  by  the  Eternal,  that  besides 
Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  no  one  else.  Instead  of  devoting  their  attention  to 
those  declarations,  and  explaining  to  us  how  they  can  be 


PREFACE  V 

reconciled  with  and  be  made  to  establish  the  existence 
of  the  other  gods  and  the  other  saviour  whom  they  ask 
us  to  worship,  our  Christian  friends  have  given  us  noth- 
ing else  than  endless  repetitions  of  perversions  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  For  nearly  nineteen  centuries  the 
followers  of  Jesus  have  afflicted  us  with  arguments  that 
are  proofs  only  either  of  their  ignorance  of  those  script- 
ures or  of  their  want  of  honesty  in  religious  matters ; 
and  they  have  always  failed  to  influence  Jewish  beHef , 
because,  among  other  reasons,  they  have  always  adopted 
a  line  of  argument  that  has  only  evoked  Jewish  contempt. 
The  reason  usually  given  by  Christian  Evangelists  for 
persisting  in  their  unavaiHng  efforts  to  procure  the  con- 
version of  Jews  to  Christianity  is  that  they  are  required 
to  bear  witness  for  Jesus.  But  it  may  be  suggested 
to  these  worthy  Christians  that  there  are  different  ways 
of  bearing  witness — some  that  are  creditable,  and  others 
that  are  not.  If  Christian  ministers  confined  their 
labors  at  testifying  for  Jesus  to  exhortations  from  their 
own  pulpits,  to  work  among  their  own  people,  or  even 
among  other  people  who  had  not  received  a  different 
mandate  from  a  Higher  Power,  they  might,  perhaps, 
claim  that  they  were  within  their  rights  in  what  they 
were  doing;  although  the  validity  of  such  an  argument 
cannot  be  admitted  by  us,  because  the  sin  of  inculcating 
false  and  idolatrous  doctrines  remains  the  same,  whether 
they  be  preached  to  Jews  or  to  non-Jews.  But,  waiv- 
ing or  even  granting  them  that  point,  there  certainly  can 
be  no  more  justification  for  Christian  attempts  to  pros- 
elytize the  Jews  than  there  would  be  for  a  litigant  to 
bribe  and  suborn  the  witnesses  of  the  opposite  party  in 
a  lawsuit;  or  for  the  rulers  of  a  country  or  the  generals 


Vi  PREFACE 

of  an  army  to  buy  up  the  statesmen  of  another  country, 
or  to  foster  treason  and  rebellion  among  the  soldiers  of 
another  state,  with  which  their  own  might  be  at  variance. 
All  work  of  this  kind  is  held  to  be  treacherous,  and  dis- 
graceful both  to  the  seducers  and  the  seduced ;  and  hon- 
orable men  find  no  excuse  for  it.  And  it  is  this  kind  of 
work  that  Christian  ministers  are  doing  when  they  try 
to  procure  the  conversion  of  Jews  to  Christianity. 

For,  as  they  know  full  well,  the  Israelites  are  not  the 
witnesses  of  Jesus  Christ,  nor  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  they 
are  the  witnesses  of  the  Eternal.  "  Ye  are  My  witnesses, 
saith  the  Eternal,  and  My  servant  whom  I  have  chosen, 
in  order  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  Me,  and  under- 
stand that  I  am  He ;  before  Me  there  was  no  god  formed, 
and  after  Me  there  will  be  none.  I,  even  I,  am  the  Eter- 
nal, and  beside  Me  there  is  no  saviour."  ^  These  words 
were  addressed  by  the  Eternal  to  the  children  of  Israel; 
on  them  has  been  laid  the  charge  of  testifying  to  the 
world  that  He,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  is  the  Only  God, 
and  the  Only  Saviour;  and  Christians  are  trying  to 
teach  the  Jews  to  be  disloyal  to  God,  faithless  to  their 
mission,  and  traitors  to  the  human  race,  when  they  en- 
deavor to  convert  them  to  the  worship  of  other  gods  and 
another  saviour  than  the  Eternal  alone. 

Some  other  simple  points  can  be  suggested  for  the 
consideration  of  our  Christian  friends.  When  a  man 
looks  for  witnesses  who  will  prove  the  truth  of  what  he 
desires  to  establish,  he  chooses  those  who  will  give  the 
kind  of  evidence  he  wants ;  he  will  not  select  those  who 
he  knows  will  give  contrary  testimony.  If  our  Christian 
brethren  believe  in  the  omniscience  and  prescience  of 

'  Isaiah  xliii.  lo,  ii. 


PREFACE  vii 


the  Almighty,  they  must  admit  that  He  knew  what  evi- 
dence the  Jews  would  offer  concerning  Him,  and  what 
the  Christians ;  and  if  the  Christian  theory  of  an  associa- 
tion of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead  be  the  truth  which  the 
Eternal  wished  to  convey  to  mankind,  then  it  must  be 
confessed  that  He  acted  with  less  than  human  prudence 
and  foresight  in  choosing  the  people  of  Israel  to  be  His 
witnesses.  He  should,  in  such  case,  have  selected  our 
Christian  friends  for  that  office.  That  He  did  not  do  so, 
but  chose  the  Jews,  is  proof  that  the  latter,  and  not  the 
Christians,  are  possessed  of  the  knowledge  and  give  the 
evidence  that  the  Almighty  requires  to  have  placed  be- 
fore men. 

The  necessity  that  our  Christian  brethren  feel  them- 
selves under,  of  professing  that  they  believe  in  One  God 
only,  carries  with  it  the  condemnation  of  their  doctrine 
of  an  association  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  For, 
if  it  be  true  that  the  Godhead  is  composed  of  three  Di- 
vine Beings,  each  of  whom  is  distinguishable  from  the 
other  two,  then  it  is  quite  unnecessary  for  Christians  to 
pretend  that  they  bcheve  in  One  God,  and  only  One. 
Assuming  the  existence  of  three  Divine  Beings,  each  of 
whom  has  an  individuahty  of  his  own,  there  can  be  no 
sin  or  idolatry  in  worshipping  them  as  three  distinct  gods. 
And  if  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a  union  of  three  persons 
in  the  Godhead  be  not  true,— if  there  be  in  reahty  but 
One  Being  who  is  God,— then  the  same  sin  of  idolatry 
exists,  and  in  the  same  degree,  whether  our  Christian 
brethren  worship  the  three  persons  of  their  Trinity  as 
three  separate  and  distinct  gods,  or  with  an  attempt  at 
deception  under  the  fiction  and  guise  of  One  God;  for 
their  calling  those  three  persons  One  God  is  nothing  eke 


VIU  PREFACE 

than  a  mere  shift  or  artifice  that  does  not  alter  the  essen- 
tial fact  that  our  Christian  friends  do  believe  in  and  wor- 
ship, as  God,  other  persons  than  the  Eternal  alone. 

Christians  calling  their  three  gods  One  God  has  never 
had  the  effect  of  deceiving  the  Jewish  people;  do  our 
Christian  brethren  believe  that  they  can  thereby  impose 
on  the  intelligence  of  the  Almighty  ?  Even  the  illiterate 
camel-driver  of  Mecca  was  not  deluded  by  so  hollow  a 
pretence;  and  when  he  founded  a  new  reUgion,  he  swept 
away  Christian  as  well  as  pagan  idolatry.  If  Christian 
belief  in  and  worship  of  three  gods  can  be  justified  by  the 
expedient  of  calling  them  One  God,  then  every  form  of 
polytheism  can  be  similarly  vindicated  and  excused. 

However  difficult  it  may  be  for  a  simple  and  ob\ious 
rehgious  truth  to  penetrate  the  Christian  mind,  the  Jews 
do  not  require  to  be  told  that  the  declarations  made  by 
the  Eternal,  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no 
saviour,  none  Hke  Him,  and  none  else,  are  absolute  de- 
nials by  Him  of  the  existence  of  any  other  god  or  any 
other  saviour  than  Himself  alone,  and  are  therefore 
directly  opposed  to  the  trinitarian  doctrine  of  Christian- 
ity; and  that,  whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  those 
passages  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  on  which  our  Christian 
friends  rely  for  proof  of  the  truth  of  that  doctrine,  they 
cannot  possibly  be  susceptible  of  the  interpretation  that 
Christians  give  them.  These  are  points  that  are  ele- 
mentary in  their  character,  and  only  require  to  be  stated 
in  order  to  compel  the  instant  con\dction  of  their  truth. 

The  declarations  made  by  the  Almighty,  that  beside 
Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  none  else,  are  so  absolutely  fatal  to  the  Christian 
case,  and  put  it  so  completely  out  of  court,  that,  to  every 


PREFACE  IX 

kind  of  question  and  argument  concerning  the  alleged 
divinity  of  the  second  and  third  persons  of  the  Christian 
Trinity  that  may  be  put  or  addressed  by  any  Christian 
Evangehst  to  a  Jew,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  latter  to  reply 
that  the  Eternal  has  declared  that  beside  Himself  there 
is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  no  one 
else.  Until  our  Christian  friends  take  the  ground,  and 
show  themselves  :fo  establish,  that  the  Eternal  God  of 
Israel  did  not  make  those  declarations,  and  that  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  are  in  error  in  attributing  them  to  Him, 
no  other  answer  from  an  Israelite  is  necessary  to  prove 
the  utter  falsity  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a  Trinity. 

The  book  concludes  with  a  lecture  that  was  delivered 
by  the  writer  to  the  Young  People's  Society  of  Shaar 
Hashomayim  of  Montreal. 

L.  A.  H. 

Montreal,  December,  1905  (5666). 


From  The  Jewish  Times,  Montreal, 

February  2,  1900. 

In  this  number  we  begin  the  publication  of  a  paper 
by  Mr.  Lewis  A.  Hart,  of  this  city,  on  a  subject  which 
has  been  attracting  considerable  attention  of  late. 
Christian  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  Jews,  which  per- 
sists in  the  face  of  continuous  and  disheartening  failure, 
appears  to  the  Jewish  mind  a  most  extraordinary  exhi- 
bition of  human  creduUty  and  obstinacy.  Neither 
seeking  nor  desiring  converts  to  their  own  faith,  ask- 
ing only  to  be  allowed  to  worship  the  God  of  their 
fathers  in  their  own  way,  free  from  interference  and 
molestation,  believing  that  good  men  of  all  nations  will 
share  in  the  felicity  of  the  Eternal,  Jews  are  at  a  loss 
to  understand  the  proselytizing  fervor  of  Christian  con- 
versionists  toward  them.  Perhaps  if  there  were  not  so 
many  old  women  of  both  sexes  belonging  to  the  Protes- 
tant sects  who  subscribe  with  unfailing  generosity  to  the 
fund  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  there  would  be  little 
or  none  of  this  particular  kind  of  missionary  zeal.  But 
giving  the  conversionists  credit  for  sincerity  in  their  be- 
lief that  they  possess  the  truth  and  are  by  conscience 
compelled  to  make  it  known  to  others,  the  best  way  to 
meet  their  attacks  is  that  taken  by  Mr.  Hart.  In  a  calm, 
logical,  courteous  manner  he  surveys  the  field  of  dispu- 
tation, less  as  a  polemic  disquisition  than  as  a  scientifi- 
cally critical  examination  of  the  grounds  of  attack.  We 
have  never  read  a  more  able  paper  on  this  much  debated 
subject,  and  recommend  it  to  the  careful  study  of  the 
members  of  the  Protestant  Ministerial  Association. 


ON    CHRISTIAN    ATTEMPTS 
TO   CONVERT  JEWS 


To  the  Editor  of  The  Jewish  Times: 

In  your  issue  of  the  24th  November  ^  there  appeared 
a  letter  from  the  Rev.  G.  Osborne  Troop,  in  which  he 
stated:  ''The  inteUigent  Christian  has  no  idea  of  con- 
verting the  Jew  into  a  Christian.  Our  one  sincere 
desire  is,  if  possible,  to  persuade  the  Jews  to  see  in  Jesus 
the  Messiah  of  their  own  Sacred  Scriptures." 

If  the  intelligent  Christian  has  no  idea  of  converting 
the  Jew  into  a  Christian,  then  why  should  he  desire,  if 
possible,  to  persuade  the  Jews  to  see  in  Jesus  the  Mes- 
siah of  their  own  Sacred  Scriptures?  What  difference 
is  there,  other  than  one  in  phraseology,  between  convert- 
ing the  Jew  into  a  Christian,  and  persuading  him  to  see 
in  Jesus  the  Messiah  of  his  Scriptures  ?  The  statement 
of  the  reverend  gentleman  is  exquisite  in  its  simplicity, 
or  in  its  dexterity,  accordingly  as  we  may  regard  it.  But 
even  supposing,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  Jews 
could  by  any  possibiHty  see  in  Jesus  the  Messiah  of 
their  own  Sacred  Scriptures,  that  circumstance  would 
not  furnish  them  with  any  justification  for  accepting  him 
as  their  Lord  or  their  Saviour.  Even  supposing  further, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  Christian  theory  be 

I  '  The  24th  November,  1899. 


2         A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

true,  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  even  that  circum- 
stance would  not  furnish  the  Jews  with  any  more  justifi- 
cation for  worshipping  Jesus  than  would  the  fact  that 
the  Prince  of  Wales  is  the  son  of  Queen  Victoria  jus- 
tify us  in  swearing  allegiance  to  the  Prince  during  the 
Queen's  lifetime.  And  yet  the  Prince  is,  without  ques- 
tion, Her  Majesty's  son,  and  the  heir  to  the  throne.  But 
while  the  Queen  lives,  our  fealty  is  due  to  her  alone ;  and 
in  the  same  way  that  any  one  who  sought  to  induce  Her 
Majesty's  subjects  to  swear  allegiance  to  the  Prince 
would  be  guilty  of  treason  to  the  Queen,  so  are  those 
Christians  who  seek  to  induce  the  Jews  to  worship  Jesus 
as  their  Lord  and  Sa\iour  guilty  of  treason  and  rebellion 
against  the  God  who  declared  from  amidst  the  thunders 
and  lightnings  of  Mount  Sinai,  ''I  am  the  Eternal  thy 
God;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me." ^ 

Possibly  the  Rev.  Mr.  Troop  was  troubled  by  a  con- 
sciousness of  this  indisputable  truth,  conflicting  with  his 
zeal  as  an  evangelist,  when  he  wrote  that  the  intelligent 
Christian  has  no  idea  of  converting  the  Jew  into  a  Chris- 
tian. 

In  endeavoring  to  procure  the  conversion  of  Jews  to 
Christianity — whether  it  be  so  called,  or  whether  it  be 
termed  Jewish  Evangelization,  or  persuading  the  Jews 
to  see  in  Jesus  the  Messiah  of  their  Scriptures — Chris- 
tians put  themselves  into  a  very  peculiar  position.  For 
they  cannot  pretend  that  the  Jews  worship  a  false  or  an 
inferior  God;  they  have  to  admit  that  the  God  wor- 
shipped by  the  Jews  is  a  true  and  the  Supreme  God; 
they  even  profess  that  they  themselves  worship  the  same 
God ;  and  yet,  because  they  claim  that  there  is  another 

1  Exod.  XX.  2,  3. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS  3 

God,  they  want  the  Jews  to  believe  in  and  worship,  and 
to  place  their  every  hope  of  salvation  in,  that  other  doubt- 
ful God  whom  the  Christians  call  the  "Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  "God  the  Son,"  their  "Saviour."  Surely,  if 
Jesus  were  a  God,  and  if  the  Almighty  had  intended  that 
the  people  of  Israel  should  worship  Jesus  as  their  God, 
their  Lord  and  their  Saviour,  He  would  have  said  so  in 
language  as  plain  and  unmistakable  as  that  of  any  of  the 
Ten  Commandments ;  in  words  so  plain  that  there  could 
be  no  debate  and  no  possibility  of  mistake  about  them. 
In  a  matter  of  such  supreme  importance  as  the  salvation 
of  souls,  surely  the  Almighty  would  have  instructed  the 
Israehtes,  His  chosen  people  and  His  witnesses,  in  a 
manner  as  clear  and  precise — nay,  in  a  manner  even 
more  precise  and  clear  than  He  used  in  matters  pertain- 
ing to  their  moral  and  material  welfare.  We  Jews  be- 
lieve that  God  did  so  direct  us,  and  in  words  that  even  a 
child  could  understand. 

What  did  the  Almighty  command  ? 

"I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God,  who  have  brought  thee 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage. 
Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."  *  " I  am  the 
Eternal  your  God,  who  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  to  be  your  God ;  I  am  the  Eternal  your  God."  ^ 
"I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy 
Saviour." ^  "I,  even  I, am  the  Eternal ;  and  besides  Me 
there  is  no  saviour."*  "Thus  saith  the  Eternal,  the 
King  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Eternal  of  Hosts, 
I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last ;  and  besides  Me  there  is 
no  god."'     "I   am  the  Eternal, and  there  is  none  else, 

^  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.  2  Numb,  xv.  41.  ^  Isaiah  xliii.  3. 

^  Isaiah  xliii.  11.  ^  Ibid.y  xHv.  6. 


4        A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

there  is  no  god  besides  Me;  I  girded  thee,  though  thou 
hast  not  known  Me ;  that  they  may  know  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun,  and  from  the  West,  that  there  is  none  besides 
Me;  I  am  the  Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else."  ^  "Tell 
ye,  and  bring  them  near;  yea,  let  them  take  counsel  to- 
gether; who  hath  declared  this  from  ancient  time  ?  Who 
hath  told  it  from  that  time  ?  Have  not  I  the  Eternal  ? 
And  there  is  no  god  else  besides  Me;  a  just  God,  and  a 
Saviour;  there  is  none  besides  Me."  ^  ''Look  unto  Me 
and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth;  for  I  am  God, 
and  there  is  none  else."^  ''I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God 
from  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  thou  shah  know  no  god  but 
Me;  for  there  is  no  saviour  besides  Me."  *' « 

There  is  no  getting  away  from  these  commands ;  they 
are  clear  and  positive  declarations;  there  is  no  doubt 
about  them,  and  from  them  no  second  meaning  can  be 
drawn;  to  pretend  to  misunderstand  their  import  would 
be  to  convict  ourselves  of  imbecility  or  of  rank  infidelity; 
and  they  are  repeated  over  and  over  again,  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  all  the  prophets, 
from  Moses  to  Malachi. 

1  Isaiah  xlv.  5,  6.        2  m^^  ^i.        3  Ibid.,  22.       *  Hosea  xiu.  4. 

5  The  non- Jewish  reader  may  be  here  told  that  in  the  above  and  in 
all  other  quotations  made  in  this  book  from  the  Old  Testament,  wher- 
ever the  expression  "the  Eternal"  is  employed,  the  word  used  in 
the  Hebrew  text  is  the  Holy  Name,  the  tetragrammaton  Yod,  He,  Vav, 
He.  The  meaning  of  that  Name  is  ''the  Eternal,"  or  "the  Everlast- 
ing"; and  in  obedience  to  the  Third  Commandment,  which  prohibits 
the  taking  of  The  Name  in  vain,  the  Jews  do  not  pronounce  it  as  it  is 
written,  but  call  it  "Adonai,"  which  means  "Lord."  Following  this 
Jewish  custom,  the  Holy  Name  is  usually  rendered  in  EngUsh  Bibles 
by  the  word  Lord,  its  proper  sense  being  indicated  by  printing  it  in 
small  capitals.  And  even  the  name  Adonai  the  Jews  pronounce  only 
when  in  prayer.  When  not  in  prayer,  they  use  the  word  "Adoshem," 
a  name  compounded  of  part  of  the  word  Adonai,  and  shem,  name,  or 
else  the  word  *'Hashem,"  signifying  "The  Name,"  when  speaking  of 
the  Eternal. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS  5 

Such  is  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  case.  On  the  other 
hand,  what  have  the  Christians  to  cite  in  their  favor 
from  the  Old  Testament  ?  Not  one  plain,  straightfor- 
ward declaration.  There  is  not  a  passage  quoted  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  favor  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
that  is  not  wrested  from  the  meaning  given  to  it  by  the 
context,  or  that  is  not  susceptible  of  another  and  simpler 
interpretation  than  the  one  ascribed  to  it  by  its  Christian 
exponents.  And  yet  Christians  would  fain  have  us  Jews 
believe  that  they  know  better  than  we  do  what  the  Script- 
ures contain;  they  claim,  in  effect,  that  the  Almighty 
was  in  error,  that  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  is  not  our  Sav- 
iour, that  there  is  another  Saviour  beside  Him,  and  that 
it  was  in  order  that  Jesus  Christ  should  be  our  God,  our 
Lord,  and  our  Saviour  that  the  God  of  our  fathers  brought 
us  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  and  selected  us  as  His  chosen 
people  and  His  witnesses ! 

The  doctrine  taught  by  Moses  to  the  people  of  Israel 
was  not  susceptible  of  any  doubt ;  there  was  no  mystery, 
and  no  double  meaning  about  it.  Hear  him.  ""CPnto 
thee  it  was  shown,  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the 
Eternal  He  is  God;  there  is  none  else  beside  Him."  ^ 
"Know  therefore  this  day,  and  reflect  in  thy  heart,  that 
the  Eternal  He  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the 
earth  beneath;  there  is  none  else.'"*  "Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  One." '  These 
statements  are  as  plain  as  language  can  make  them ; 
and  there  was  no  intention  to  deceive,  or  to  mislead,  or 
to  mystify,  about  them.  For  what  said  Moses  ?  "For 
this  commandment,  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  is 
not  hidden  from  thee,  neither  is  it  far  off.     It  is  not  in 

^  Deut.  iv.  35.  2  jj^.j  29.  ^  Ibid.,  vi.  4. 


6        A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

heaven,  that  thou  shouldst  say,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us 
to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and 
do  it  ?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou  shouldst 
say.  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto 
us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very 
nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou 
mayest  do  it."  ^ 

It  is  reproached  by  Christians  against  the  Jews  that 
the  latter  will  insist  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  their 
Scriptures.  The  reproach  is  well  founded,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  be  so ;  for  the  Jews  believe  and  will  continue  to 
believe  that  when  the  Almighty  declared  that  He  was 
the  Eternal  their  God  who  had  brought  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  to  be  their  God,  that  they  should  have  no 
other  god  before  Him,  that  He  was  their  Saviour,  and 
that  beside  Him  there  was  no  saviour.  He  meant  ex- 
actly what  He  said.  **  God  is  not  a  man  that  He  should 
lie;  nor  the  son  of  man,  that  He  should  repent."  ^  The 
Jews  further  believe  that  when  Moses  declared  that  "the 
Eternal  our  God  is  One,"  he  meant  one,  and  not  two,  or 
three,  or  twenty-three;  and  that  when  Moses  declared 
that  the  Eternal  He  is  God  in  the  heavens  above,  and 
upon  the  earth  beneath,  and  that  there  is  none  else,  he 
meant  precisely  what  he  said. 

As  to  the  Christian  method  of  interpreting  the  Old 
Testament,  let  me  cite  the  words  of  a  minister  of  the 
Anglican  Church.  In  "  Three  Letters  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,"  ^  by  the  Rev.  John  Oxlee,  rector  of 
Molesworth,  that  learned  clergyman  denounced,  in  the 
interests  of  his  church: 

^  Deut.  XXX.  11-14.         2  Numb,  xxiii.  19. 
3  PubUshed  by  Hatcherd  &■  Son. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS         7 

"The  fanatic  zeal  which,  in  spite  of  reason  and  com- 
mon sense,  would  cite  and  apply  every  passage — no 
matter  whether  historical,  didactic,  or  prophetic — either 
to  Jesus  himself  personally,  or  in  support  of  some  doc- 
trinal tenet  admitted  by  the  church;  and  that  to  the 
total  exclusion  of  the  literal  sense,  however  plain  and 
indisputable  it  may  seem  to  common  understandings: 
this  culpable  bias  on  the  part  of  the  church  docent  has 
never  ceased  to  display  itself  during  the  whole  interval 
of  the  Christian  dispensation,  from  the  first  to  the  nine- 
teenth century;  so  that  there  is  scarcely  a  passage  of  any 
striking  importance  which  has  not  been  more  or  less  per- 
verted or  misapplied,  in  order  that  faith  and  not  truth 
might  appear  to  be  triumphant." 

*'The  law  which  Moses  commanded  us  is  the  inheri- 
tance of  the  congregation  of  Jacob."  ^  It  has  been  com- 
mitted to  our  charge,  and  we  are  responsible  for  its  safe- 
keeping; we  therefore  cannot  abandon  it  or  consider  it 
merely  typical.  But  we  do  not  attack  the  Christians  on 
account  of  their  interpretation  of  our  Scriptures;  we 
only  ask  that  they  will  abstain  from  attempting  to  force 
their  interpretation  upon  us.  They  are  free  to  cherish 
their  own  ideas ;  and  no  Jew  will  interfere  with  them  be- 
cause they  abide  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospels  as  ac- 
cepted and  taught  them  by  their  fathers.  The  mission 
of  the  Jew  is  not  to  proselytize  after  the  manner  of  the 
Christian.  But  when  they  will  attack  us,  when  they  will 
insult  us  with  proposals  that  we  forsake  the  religion  of 
our  fathers,  when  they  will  seek  to  lead  us  astray  after 
gods  whom  our  fathers  have  not  known,  when  they  will 
persist  in  attempting  to  seduce  our  children  to  adopt 

*  Deut.  xxxiii.  4. 


8        A   JEWISH    REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

their  religion,  when  they  will  organize  themselves  for 
persistent  and  systematic  effort  to  accompUsh  these  pur- 
poses— then  it  becomes  necessary  for  us  to  remind  them 
that  we  have  something  to  say  in  our  defence. 


II. 


Among  the  many  fallacious  opinions  entertained  by 
Christians,  not  the  least  erroneous  is  the  belief  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is  based  upon  that  of 
the  Old.  Nothing  could  be  more  unfounded  than  such 
an  idea.  The  Old  Testament  teaches  that  there  is  One 
Sole  God,  the  Eternal,  who  was  One  Alone  before  the 
world  was  created,  who  is  One  Alone  at  the  present  time, 
and  who  will  be  One  Alone  to  all  eternity ;  that  He  Alone 
is  our  Saviour;  and  that  there  is  no  other  being,  on  earth 
or  in  heaven,  to  whom  we  can  apply  for  salvation  and 
help  but  to  Him,  who  alone  is  our  God  and  our  Saviour. 

What  does  the  New  Testament  teach  ?  It  teaches  a 
fantastic  theory,  built  up  on  a  foundation  of  heathen 
mythology  and  philosophy,  of  a  triumvirate  of  gods — 
for  a  Trinity  in  Unity  is  a  palpable  misnomer — whose 
combined  efforts  for  the  good  and  salvation  of  mankind 
are  frustrated  and  set  at  naught  by  a  malignant  devil, 
the  implacable  enemy  and  tempter  of  the  human  race, 
into  whose  power  Christians  believe  that  the  Almighty 
has  delivered  mankind,  and  from  whose  power  they  also 
beUeve  that  He  could  only  redeem  them  by  the  sacrifice 
of  His  son — a  sacrifice,  too,  that  has  so  far  been  made 
in  vain,  for  nearly  1900  years  have  elapsed  since  the 
death  of  Jesus,  and  the  Christian  millennium,  the  period 


ON   CHRISTIAN  ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS         9 

of  the  Devil's  first  imprisonment,  is  apparently  as  remote 
as  ever. 

At  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  the  Greeks,  Romans, 
and  all  other  nations,  with  one  exception,  believed  in  a 
number  of  gods  and  goddesses,  and  they  also  beHeved 
that  their  gods  had  children  by  human  mothers,  and 
that  their  inferior  deities  and  historical  heroes  v^^ere 
sprung  from  such  unions.  The  Jews  were  the  excep- 
tion. The  descendants  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
had  received  a  knowledge  of  God  that  was  incompat- 
ible with  the  beliefs  of  other  nations.  The  Jews  had 
been  taught  that  '*God  is  not  a  man,  nor  the  son  of 
man"  ^;  and  unto  them  it  had  been  shown,  that  they 
might  know,  ''that  the  Eternal  He  is  God,  there  is  none 
else  beside  Him."  '  And  to  this  day  it  may  be  said  that 
the  Jews  are  the  only  people  who  have  been  able  to  grasp 
the  sublime  idea  of  One  Ahnighty  God,  beside  whom 
there  is  none  else. 

The  New  Testament  bears  abundant  witness  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  and  other  Jews  of  his  day  were  influ- 
enced by  the  common  Gentile  beliefs  of  the  time,  just  as 
there  have  been  Jews  who  have  been  led  into  idolatry, 
s^d  just  as  there  are  some  Jews  of  the  present  day  who 
have  become  converts  to  Christianity;  and  this  ex- 
plains how  Peter  and  other  adherents  of  Jesus  came  to 
claim  for  him  a  divine  origin — a  claim  in  which  he,  at 
their  instigation,  concurred,  although  he  charged  them, 
at  the  same  time,  not  to  say  that  he  was  Christ.^  Some 
of  my  readers  will  remember  the  case  of  Paulina,  the  wife 
of  Saturninus,  who  was  as  noted  for  her  modesty  and  virtue 
as  for  her  beauty,  and  who  was  deceived  by  Decius  Mun- 

^  Numb,  xxiii.  19.  2  peut.  iv.  35.  ^  Matt.  xvi.  20. 


lO      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

dus,  who  bribed  some  of  the  priests  of  the  temple  of  Isis, 
and  personated  the  god  Anubis.  And  until  Decius 
made  it  known  that  he  had  been  the  god,  the  lady  was 
deemed  by  herself,  her  husband,  and  her  friends  to  have 
been  highly  honored.  So  that  there  was  nothing  repug- 
nant or  incomprehensible  to  the  public  Gentile  sentiment 
of  the  day  in  the  claim  of  a  divine  origin  for  Jesus  being 
made,  and  it  came  to  be  accepted  by  his  followers,  and 
Christians  ever  since  have  had  to  make  the  best  of  it  they 
could.  At  the  same  time  it  is  evident,  from  different 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  that,  after  her  mar- 
riage, the  mother  of  Jesus  and  her  husband  and  their 
other  children  were  not  behevers  in  his  miraculous  con- 
ception.^ Nor  could  the  alleged  happening  of  another 
event  of  the  kind  ever  now  come  to  be  believed  in. 

The  New  Testament  idea  of  the  Devil  was  also  taken 
from  heathen  sources. 

Zoroaster,  the  prophet  of  the  Persians,  taught  that 
there  was  a  Supreme  Being,  under  whom  were  two  an- 
gels :  one  of  Light,  who  is  the  author  of  all  good ;  and  one 
of  Darkness,  who  is  the  author  of  all  evil.  These  two 
Angels  are  represented  as  being  in  a  perpetual  struggle 
with  each  other ;  where  the  Angel  of  Light  prevails,  good 
is  to  be  found;  and  where  the  Angel  of  Darkness  pre- 
dominates, there  the  most  is  evil.  This  struggle  is  to  con- 
tinue to  the  end  of  the  world,  when  there  will  be  a  day  of 
judgment,  and  retribution  will  be  rendered  to  all  accord- 
ing to  their  works ;  and  the  Angel  of  Darkness  and  his 
followers  will  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where  they 
will  suffer  in  darkness  the  punishment  of  their  evil  deeds; 
and  the  Angel  of  Light  and  his  followers  will  also  go  into 

1  Mark  iii.  21,  31,  32  ;  Luke  ii.  48-50;  John  vii.  5. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       II 

a  world  of  their  own,  where  they  will  receive  in  everlast- 
ing light  the  reward  due  to  their  good  deeds/  The 
agreement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  with 
that  of  Zoroaster  is  so  remarkable  that  we  can  only  con- 
clude that  the  Devil  of  the  former  was  of  Persian  origin. 
The  New  Testament  is  also  indebted  to  heathen  philos- 
ophy for  many  of  its  other  dogmas. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  is  there  not  a  *'  Satan  "  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament?  Certainly,  there  is;  but  he  is 
not  the  evil  and  malevolent  being  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  term  "Satan"  is  applied  to 
any  angel  of  the  Lord  sent  upon  an  errand  of  punish- 
ment, and  in  the  case  of  Job  to  a  minister  of  probation 
rather  than  of  punishment.  The  ''Satan"  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  as  much  the  faithful  servant  of  God  as  any 
other  of  His  angels,  and  he  appears  in  the  presence  of 
God  among  His  other  angels;  just  as,  upon  earth,  a 
judge  of  a  criminal  court  or  other  officer  of  justice  will 
appear  at  the  court  of  his  sovereign. 

The  whole  of  the  New  Testament  scheme  is  built 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  there  is  a  powerful  and  malig- 
nant being,  called  the  Devil  or  Satan,  who  is  the  chief  of 
unknown  myriads  of  other  evil  spirits ;  that  he  is,  by  the 
sufferance  of  God,  the  prince  of  this  world  and  the  au- 
thor of  all  sin,  woe,  and  death ;  that  he  is  the  tempter  and 
tormentor  of  men  and  the  tyrant  of  the  earth;  and  that 
the  Son  of  God,  in  order  to  deliver  mankind  from  the 
vassalage  of  this  monster,  descended  from  heaven  and 
purchased  their  ransom  of  the  tyrant  at  the  price  of  his 
blood.     The  idea  of  the  death  of  Jesus  being  an  atone- 

iPrideaux,  "Connections  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament," 
Part  I,  Book  4. 


12      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

ment  to  God  for  the  sins  of  men  is  a  theory  of  the  mod- 
ern Christian;  the  primitive  Christians  looked  upon  the 
death  of  Jesus  as  a  ransom  paid  by  God  to  the  Devil.  To 
become  a  Christian,  according  to  the  New  Testament, 
is  to  be  freed  from  the  tyranny  of  Satan,  to  turn  from 
darkness  unto  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God, 
and  Christians  therefore  regard  themselves  as  being  mem- 
bers of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  remainder  of  man- 
kind they  charitably  consider  to  belong  to  the  kingdom  of 
the  Devil  We  all  have  heard  of  the  much-vaunted  Chris- 
tian charity ;  what  think  you  of  this  as  a  specimen  of  it  ? 
It  is  claimed  by  Christians  that  the  character  of  Jesus, 
as  portrayed  in  the  New  Testament,  presents  a  perfect 
example  of  charity  and  forgiveness  in  their  highest  and 
noblest  forms;  and  his  exhortation  to  ''Love  your  ene- 
mies "  is  quoted  as  one  instance  among  many.  How  did 
Jesus  say  that  he  would  behave  toward  those  who  de- 
nied him  before  men,  that  is,  toward  those  who  were  not 
his  enemies,  who  did  not  seek  his  harm,  but  who  simply 
could  not,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  reason  and 
conscience,  accept  him  as  their  Lord  and  Saviour  ?  Did 
he  say  that  he  would  plead  for  them  before  the  Almighty, 
and  entreat  their  pardon?  Not  at  all.  "Whosoever 
shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  ^  Because  a  man,  in 
the  exercise  of  such  understanding  as  it  has  pleased  the 
Almighty  to  give  him,  cannot  on  the  evidence  submitted 
to  him  accept  Jesus  as  his  Lord  and  Saviour,  therefore 
will  Jesus,  when  his  turn  will  come,  deny  the  offender 
before  God,  which  means,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  shutting  of  his  soul  out  from  Heaven  and  cast- 

^  Matt.  X.  33. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       1 3 

ing  it  to  all  eternity  with  the  Devil  and  his  followers  into 
Hell.  What  think  you  of  this  as  another  specimen  of 
Christian  charity? 

I  might  cite  from  the  New  Testament  scores  of  other 
instances  in  its  teachings,  not  of  charity  and  forgiveness, 
but  of  the  very  opposite,  were  it  not  my  wish,  as  a  Jew, 
to  .^efrain  from  attacking  the  Christian  religion,  which 
has,  without  question,  taught  mankind  more  charity  and 
forgiveness,  and  done  more  for  the  good  of  men  and  the 
glory  of  God,  than  any  other  religion  except  our  own. 
My  only  desire  is  to  remind  those  Christians  who  will 
persist  in  interfering  with  us  in  the  exercise  of  our  relig- 
ion that  their  position  is  not  an  impregnable  one,  that 
there  are  many  weak  spots  in  their  armor,  that  there 
are  powerful  and  weighty  arguments  against  them,  and 
that  while  we  do,  like  them,  read  and  endeavor  to  under- 
stand the  Scriptures,  we  cannot,  like  them,  set  the  New 
Testament  before  the  Old,  nor  drag  texts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament out  of  their  natural  order  and  turn  them  to  a 
sense  foreign  to  their  obvious  meaning.  In  short,  I 
merely  wish  to  make  them  understand  that  while  they 
may  have  conscientious  reasons,  which  we  respect,  for 
following  the  religion  of  the  Gospels,  so  have  we  Jews 
conscientious  reasons  for  adhering  to  the  religion  of  our 
fathers.  What  our  rehgion  has  been  and  is,  we  know 
better  than  they;  and  we  require  them  to  respect  our 
motives  and  to  abstain  from  interfering  with  us  in  the 
discharge  of  our  duty  toward  our  God.  In  matters  of 
religion,  as  well  as  in  matters  of  charity,  morality,  and 
sobriety,  the  Jews  have  nothing  to  learn  from  the  Chris- 
tians; but  the  Christians  have  yet  a  vast  deal  to  learn, 
from  the  Jews. 


14     A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 


III. 


At  the  present  moment  I  have  before  me  a  book  enti- 
tled ''Israel  My  Glory,"  written  by  the  Rev.  John  Wil- 
kinson, founder  and  director  of  the  Mildmay  Mission  to 
the  Jews.  This  book  is  an  interesting  one  in  many 
respects,  and  chiefly  on  account  of  its  showing  the  won- 
derful acrobatic  performances  that  an  intelligent  Chris- 
tian is  capable  of  achieving  in  his  endeavors  to  make  the 
square  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament  fit  into  the  round 
holes  of  the  New.  The  reverend  gentleman  displays  in 
this  direction  a  mental  agility  that  is  really  remarkable; 
and  he  skips  from  New  Testament  to  Old  and  back  again, 
picking  up  a  text  here  and  another  there,  and  dovetail- 
ing them  into  one  another,  with  a  disregard  of  context 
and  a  contempt  for  truth  that  would  make  even  Paul 
green  with  envy.  And  withal,  without,  in  the  contro- 
versial parts  of  his  book,  advancing  one  single  sound 
argument,  or  quoting  from  the  Old  Testament  any  one 
passage  that  cannot  easily  be  shown  to  have  an  obviously 
different  meaning  to  the  one  he  gives  it.  Of  this  pecu- 
liarity of  his  arguments  I  will  show  an  example  or  two. 

From  a  pecuniary  point  of  view  the  work  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Wilkinson  in  trying  to  convert  Jews  appears  to  have 
had  results  that  have  been  eminently  satisfactory  to  him ; 
and  I  recommend  the  head  of  the  Montreal  mission  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews  to  study  with  zeal  the  13th 
chapter  of  Mr.  Wilkinson's  book.  It  is  true  that  the 
style  in  which  this  chapter  is  written  is  not  altogether  in 
accordance  with  the  ideas  generally  entertained  with 


ON   CHRISTIAN    ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS       I5 

regard  to  the  proper  observance  of  the  Third  Command- 
ment ;  but  the  Montreal  missionary  will  not  let  this  tri- 
fling objection  prevent  him  from  imitating  the  methods 
employed  by  Mr.  Wilkinson  in  promoting  the  flow  in  his 
direction  of  the  surplus  monc}s  of  piously  minded  Chris- 
tians. 

In  the  preface  to  his  book  Mr.  Wilkinson  states  that 
there  is  scarcely  anything  that  humbles  him  to  the  dust 
more  than  his  very  limited  acquaintance  with  the  Word 
of  God ;  and  upon  this  humble  avowal  it  appears  from 
the  reviews  of  the  book  pubHshed  at  the  end  of  it  that 
"The  Christian"  editorially  commented,  "This  is  how 
a  man  instructed  of  God  must  ever  feel,  and  should  ever 
speak."  Mr.  Wilkinson  must  have  himself  had  a  pro- 
found conviction  that  he  was  so  instructed,  for  he  pro- 
ceeds with  the  utmost  assurance  and  to  his  own  entire 
satisfaction  to  prove  that  he  understands  fully  the  whole 
scheme  of  salvation ;  and  he  explains  what  the  Almighty 
meant,  and  what  He  did  not  mean,  when  He  is  to  be  be- 
lieved, and  when  He  is  not  to  be  believed ;  and  he  shows, 
also  to  his  own  satisfaction,  that  the  Jews  know  nothing 
about  their  Scriptures,  and  nothing  about  their  religion, 
while  he  knows  everything  concerning  both,  and  what 
their  religion  ought  to  be. 

As  Mr.  Wilkinson  appears,  from  the  comments  of  the 
Christian  press  and  clergymen  published  at  the  end  of 
his  book,  to  be  a  distinguished  type  of  the  intelligent  kind 
of  Christians  who  are  so  terribly  exercised  about  the 
blindness,  perversity,  and  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
utter  hopelessness  of  their  chance  of  salvation  except  as 
converts  to  Christianity,  and  the  necessity  of  their  con- 
version— and  as  his  arguments  are  those  of  the  class  of 


1 6       A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

Christians  to  which  he  belongs,  and  are  put  forward  in 
their  strongest  light — I  may  be  excused  for  devoting  a 
little  attention  to  his  methods  of  reasoning. 

In  the  preface  to  his  book  he  states  that ''  the  principle 
adopted  in  quoting  Scripture  to  prove  anything,  past  or 
future,  is  simply  to  let  the  Word  of  God  mean  what  He 
says;  that  is,  if  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  make  good 
sense,  seek  no  other  sense."  To  this  principle,  as  appli- 
cable to  the  Old  Testament,  no  Jew  will  take  exception ; 
let  us  see  how  our  Christian  friend  puts  it  in  practice. 

Of  the  first  Commandment,  delivered  by  God  Him- 
self from  Mount  Sinai,  he  takes  no  notice.  Of  the  other 
commands  of  the  Almighty  that  I  have  quoted,  such  as, 
"  I  am  the  Eternal  your  God,  who  brought  you  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt  to  be  your  God  "  ^;  "I  am  the  Eternal 
thy  God,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour"  ^ ;  "  I,  even 
I,  am  the  Eternal,  and  besides  Me  there  is  no  saviour  "  '; 
"I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last,  and  besides  Me 
there  is  no  god  "^ — of  passages  like  these,  that  are  re- 
peated almost  without  end  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament,  our  Christian  friend  also  takes  no  no- 
tice ;  these  being,  apparently,  unworthy  of  his  considera- 
tion. Of  the  three  impressive  declarations  made  by 
Moses,  each  bearing  witness  to  the  Unity  of  God — "Unto 
thee  it  was  shown,  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the 
Eternal  He  is  God,  there  is  none  else  beside  Him"*; 
"Know  therefore  this  day,  and  reflect  in  thy  heart,  that 
the  Eternal  He  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the 
earth  beneath,  there  is  none  else  " ; '  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  One"  ' — of  these  three 

*  Numb.  XV.  41.     2  Isaiah  xliii.  3.      ^  Ibid.,  11.      ^  Ibid.,  xliv.  6. 
^  Deut.  iv.  35.         ®  Deut.  iv.  39.         '  Ibid.,  vi.  4. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       1 7 

affirmations  of  the  Unity  of  God  he  also  ignores  the  first 
two,  but  bases  his  argument  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  upon 
the  third. 

Our  Christian  friend  says,  "if  the  plain  and  obvious 
sense  make  good  sense,  seek  no  other  sense." 

The  plain  and  obvious  sense  of  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  one,"  makes  good  sense; 
as  good  sense,  for  instance,  as  "Hear,  O  English,  Vic- 
toria our  Queen,  Victoria  is  One,"  can  possibly  make; 
and  therefore  our  typical  Christian,  if  he  were  consis- 
tent, should  seek  to  find  in  this  declaration  of  the  prophet 
Moses  no  other  sense  than  the  plain  and  obvious  sense 
that  "the  Eternal  is  One."  But  consistency  is  not  a  vir- 
tue that  a  Christian  can  afford  to  practise  when  he  wants 
to  convince  himself  that  his  system  of  theology  is  sound, 
or  when  he  wants  to  gain  a  convert.  Therefore  our  typ- 
ical Christian  ignores  the  principle  of  interpretation  that 
he  laid  down,  and  seeks  another  sense. 

He  favors  his  readers  with  a  series  of  conversations 
with  an  imaginary  Jew — who  is  not  a  very  good  kind  of 
Jew,  it  must  be  confessed,  but  is  presumably  the  best 
kind  of  a  Jew  that  our  Christian  friend  could  manufact- 
ure— and  in  the  first  of  these  conversations  he  points 
out  that  the  Hebrew  name  for  God,  "Elohim,"  is  in  the 
plural,  and  that  this  Elohim  speaks  of  himself  in  the 
plural,  as  in  "Let  us  make  man,"  etc.  Hence  our  Chris- 
tian friend  deduces  that  God  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  plu- 
rahty  in  Unity.  By  the  same  process  of  reasoning  it 
could  be  shown  that  Moses  was  a  pluraHty,  for  God  said 
to  him,  "See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  (literally,  Elohim, 
gods)  to  Pharoah."  ^    And,  again,  the  Almighty  said  to 

2  ^  Exod.  vii.  I. 


1 8      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

Moses,  regarding  Aaron,  "  he  shall  be  to  thee  as  a  mouth, 
and  thou  shalt  be  to  him  as  a  god"  (in  the  Hebrew  it  is 
Elohim,  gods)/  Therefore  Moses  also  must  have  been 
a  plurality  in  unity. 

The  use  of  the  plural  of  majesty  is  well  known.  It 
has  been  common  at  all  times,  among  all  nations,  and 
in  all  languages.  In  all  official  documents  Queen  Vic- 
toria speaks  and  is  spoken  of  in  the  plural.  Therefore, 
according  to  the  Christian  argument.  Her  Majesty  must 
also  be  a  pluraHty  in  unity. 

Our  Christian  friend  then  enters  into  an  elaborate 
argument  to  show  that  the  Hebrew  word  echad,  "one," 
represents  a  compound  and  not  an  absolute  unity, 
although,  if  you  refer  to  any  Hebrew  grammar,  you 
will  find  that  the  cardinal  number  ''one"  is  expressed 
in  Hebrew  by  the  word  echad;  and  he  concludes  that 
the  words,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord 
is  One,"  teach  not  only  a  compound  unity  in  the  God- 
head, but  also  a  Trinity  in  Unity;  for,  he  says,  the  name 
of  God  is  mentioned  three  times  in  the  passage,  as 
Adonai^  (the  Lord),  Elohenu  (our  God),  and  Adonai 
(the  Lord),  and  then  the  word  echad,  uniting  the  three  in 
one ;  and  thus,  argues  our  Christian  friend,  we  have  a 
Trinity  in  Unity.  By  the  same  reasoning  it  must  follow 
that  the  words  "Hear,  O  English,  Victoria  our  Queen, 
Victoria  is  one,"  conclusively  establish  the  existence  of  a 
trinity  in  Her  Majesty's  person. 

And  it  is  with  twaddle  of  this  kind  that  Christians  seek 

^  Exod.  iv.  i6. 

'  Mr.  Wilkinson  is  here  in  error.  The  word  used  in  the  Hebrew 
text  is  not  the  word  Adonai,  which  means  Lord,  but  the  Holy  Name, 
which  signifies  the  Eternal,  and  which  the  Jews  pronounce  Adonai 
when  in  prayer,  and  Adoshem,  or  Hashem,  when  not  in  prayer.  (See 
foot-note  on  page  4.) 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS       1 9 

to  establish  from  the  Old  Testament  the  existence  of  a 
Trinity  in  the  God  of  Sinai,  in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel, 
who  declared:  ''See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and 
there  is  no  god  (hterally,  Elohim,  gods)  with  Me."  ^ 

I  will  not  say  that  imbecility  is  the  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  Christianity;  but  Christians  must  cer- 
tainly look  upon  the  Jews  as  a  nation  of  imbeciles,  if  they 
hope,  with  such  rubbish,  to  seduce  us  from  our  allegiance 
to  the  God  of  our  fathers. 

Now  for  a  passage  where  our  typical  Christian  finds 
that  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  makes  good  sense,  and 
therefore  seeks  no  other  sense.  We  will  take  the  pas- 
sage on  which  Christians  rely  for  the  proof  from  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus.  "  Be- 
hold, a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall 
call  his  name  Immanuel."^  This  is  the  translation  of 
the  verse  as  given  in  the  ordinary  Anglican  version  of  the 
Bible. 

It  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  plain  and  obvious  sense 
of  a  statement  that  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son 
makes  such  good  sense  that  it  is  wholly  unnecessary  to 
seek  another  sense,  for  the  statement  in  itself  impUes  a 
manifest  contradiction;  but  our  typical  Christian  regards 
it  as  being  a  case  where  no  other  sense  should  be  sought, 
and  on  it  he  bases  his  theory  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion of  Jesus.     Let  us  see  with  what  reason. 

Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pckach,  king  of  Israel,  were 
allied  against  Achaz,  king  of  Judah,  and  were  threaten- 
ing Jerusalem.  Isaiah,  the  prophet,  was  sent  by  God 
to  meet  Achaz,  and  to  comfort  him,  and  to  tell  him  that 
his  enemies  would  not  succeed  in  their  designs  against 

^  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  ^  Isaiah  vii.  14. 


20      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

him,  and  to  give  him  a  sign  from  the  Almighty  that  his 
enemies  would  soon  be  destroyed/  But  Achaz  refus- 
ing to  ask  for  a  sign,  the  prophet  continued:  "The 
Lord  will  Himself  give  you  a  sign.  Behold,  this  young 
woman  will  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his 
name  Immanuel.  Cream  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  so 
soon  as  he  knoweth  to  refuse  the  e\il  and  to  choose  the 
good.  For  before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil 
and  to  choose  the  good,  the  land  shall  be  forsaken  of  the 
kings  of  whom  thou  feelest  dread."  ^  The  child  named 
Immanuel  was  thus  to  be  a  sign  to  Achaz  that  he  would 
be  delivered  from  his  enemies,  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Syria,  before  that  child  should  know  how  to  distinguish 
what  was  pleasant  from  what  was  unpleasant  to  the  taste. 
The  child  named  Mahershalai-chash-bas,  mentioned  in 
the  next  chapter,  was  a  sign  of  the  plundering  of  Damas- 
cus and  Samaria  by  the  king  of  Assyria  before  that  child 
should  be  able  to  say  ''my  father  and  my  mother."^ 
These  signs  were  literally  fulfilled ;  and  the  prophet  has 
himself  put  this  interpretation  beyond  dispute  by  saying, 
"Behold,  I  and  the  children  whom  the  Eternal  hath 
given  me  are  for  signs  and  for  tokens  in  Israel,  from  the 
Eternal  of  Hosts  who  dwelleth  on  Mount  Zion."  ^  It  is 
supposed  that  the  ''young  woman"  to  whom  the  prophet 
alluded  was  his  own  wife,  then  present. 

^  Isaiah  vii.  3  et  seq.    ^  Ibid.,  14-16.     ^  Ibid.y  viii.  3,  4.     ■*  Ibid.,  18. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       21 


IV. 


The  sign  given  to  Achaz  can  be  compared  to  the  signs 
given  to  Gideon  ^  and  Hezekiah.  ^  To  suppose  that  the 
prophet  had  the  miraculous  conception  and  birth  of 
Jesus  from  a  virgin  mother  literally  and  primarily  in 
view,  would  be  contrary  to  the  very  purpose  of  the 
sign  given  by  him.  For  the  sign  was  given  in  order  to 
convince  Achaz  that  the  prophet  brought  him  a  message 
from  the  Lord,  and  to  assure  him  that  the  two  kings 
would  not  succeed  in  their  designs  against  him.  If  the 
sign  had  reference  to  Jesus,  how  could  a  virgin's  con- 
ceiving and  bearing  a  son,  six  hundred  years  afterward, 
be  a  sign  to  Achaz  that  the  prophet  came  to  him  with  a 
message  from  God?  But  the  statement  that  a  partic- 
ular female  then  present  would  conceive  and  give  birth 
to  a  son  within  a  short  time,  and  that,  before  the  child 
would  be  able  to  distinguish  between  what  was  pleasant 
or  unpleasant  to  the  taste,  the  king  would  be  delivered 
from  his  enemies,  and  there  would  be  plenty  in  his  land, 
was  a  proper  kind  of  a  sign  to  give  to  Achaz,  for  it  was 
the  prediction  of  an  event  that  would  soon  come  to  pass, 
but  that  yet  could  not  with  certainty  be  foretold  except 
by  a  person  divinely  inspired. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  context  is  against  the  Christian 
interpretation  and  application  of  the  verse  in  question. 
And  as  it  is  in  this  case,  so  it  is  with  every  passage  from 
the  Old  Testament  that  is  cited  by  Christians  in  sup- 
port of  their  system  of  religion.     Not  only  are  they  un- 

'  Judges  vi.  36-40.  ^  Isaiah  xxxvii.  7,  8. 


22      A   JEWISH  REPLY  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

able  to  produce  from  the  Old  Testament  one  plain  and 
unmistakable  declaration  in  favor  of  their  theories  of  the 
Trinityship  of  God  and  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus;  but 
there  is  not  one  single  passage  or  verse  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment quoted  by  them  in  support  of  their  theological  sys- 
tem that  is  not  wrested  from  the  meaning  given  to  it  by 
the  context,  or  that  cannot  be  shown  to  have  another, 
simpler  and  more  reasonable,  meaning  than  the  one  they 
give  it.  The  method  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament 
practised  by  our  typical  Christian  is  to  take  hold  of  any 
and  every  verse  that  he  thinks  can  be  of  use  to  him,  to 
isolate  it  from  the  context,  to  ignore  the  context  and  the 
hundreds  of  plain  statements  that  deny  his  theories,  and 
with  the  odds  and  ends  and  miscellaneous  scraps  that 
he  can  thus  gather  to  try  to  bolster  up  a  theological  sys- 
tem wherein  the  Almighty  is  overshadowed  by  the  Devil, 
and  which  gives  him  no  sense  of  security  unless  he  can 
induce  some  apostate  or  weak-kneed  Jew  to  agree  or  pre- 
tend to  agree  with  him.  The  whole  thing  would  be  in- 
conceivable, were  it  not  so  pitifully  true. 

Imagine,  if  you  can,  any  EngHshman  believing  that 
the  words,  "Hear,  O  English,  Victoria,  our  Queen,  Vic- 
toria is  one,"  mean  or  are  intended  to  mean  that  Her 
Majesty  is  a  trinity;  and  yet  we  Jews  are  asked  by  Chris- 
tians to  beUeve  that  the  parallel  words,  "Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  Eternal,  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  One,"  mean  and  are 
intended  to  mean  that  the  Almighty  is  a  Trinity.  It  is 
as  impossible  for  the  Jew  to  beheve  the  latter  as  it  is  for 
the  Englishman  to  admit  the  former.  The  EngHshman 
knows  that  his  queen  is  a  unity,  and  not  a  plurality  nor 
a  trinity;  and  unto  the  IsraeUte  it  has  been  shown, ^  that 

iDeut.  iv.  35,39. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       23 

he  may  know,  that  the  Eternal  is  a  Unity,  and  not  a  Plu- 
rality nor  a  Trinity.  And  when  the  Almighty  shall  see 
fit,  the  same  truth  will  be  shown  to  the  Christians  and  to 
all  other  Gentiles,  so  that  they  also  will  know  that  God 
is  One  Alone,  and  besides  Him  there  is  none  else. 

What  enlightened  judge  would  hsten  to  any  advocate 
who,  in  a  court  of  justice,  would  pervert  and  misapply 
his  legal  texts  and  authorities  in  the  way  in  which  Chris- 
tians pervert  and  misapply  their  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament?  What  Christian  would  intrust  any  suit, 
no  matter  how  trifling  in  importance,  to  any  lawyer 
whose  arguments  were  characterized  by  ridiculous  rea- 
sonings, by  perversions  and  misapplications  of  texts,  by 
wilful  disregard  of  context,  and  by  an  ignoring  of  hun- 
dreds of  formal  declarations  establishing  the  very  con- 
trary to  his  pretensions  ?  And  yet,  what  Christians 
would  not  do  in  the  most  trifling  of  worldly  matters,  that 
very  thing  they  do,  and  want  the  Jews  to  do,  in  that 
which  is  of  the  supremest  importance,  their  obedience 
and  their  duty  to  God. 

It  is  utterly  incomprehensible  to  an  Israelite  how 
any  Christian,  having  before  him  the  fear  of  God,  hav- 
ing in  him  any  reverence  for  the  Almighty,  could  ascribe 
to  Him  the  conduct  with  which  He  is  charged  by  the 
New  Testament.  What  would  be  thought  of  the  con- 
duct of  an  earthly  king  who  should  seek  out  from  among 
his  subjects  a  virgin  of  such  superior  excellence  as  to  be 
deemed  worthy  of  the  high  honor  of  being  the  mother  of 
his  only  son,  of  the  son  with  whom  he  would  share  his 
throne  and  to  whom  he  would  delegate  his  authority  over 
his  subjects,  and  make  that  virgin  by  force  majeure  the 
mother  of  his  son ;  and  then  hand  her  over  to  one  of  the 


24     A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

most  lowly  among  his  subjects ;  let  her  marry  this  poor 
man  as  though  it  were  for  the  purpose  of  making  her  an 
"honest  woman"  in  the  eyes  of  her  neighbors;  abandon 
her  and  his  son,  her  husband  and  her  children,  to  all  the 
trials  and  vicissitudes  of  a  life  among  the  poor  and  needy ; 
and,  finally,  to  appease  a  malignant  enemy  like  the 
Devil,  deliver  up  his  son  to  die  a  shameful  and  agonizing 
death  ?  What  would  be  thought  of  an  earthly  king  who 
should  do  such  things;  and  who,  having  the  power  to 
rescue,  should  remain  deaf  to  the  last  despairing  cry 
wrung  from  his  son  in  his  dying  agony,  ''My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  ^  And  it  is  conduct 
of  this  kind,  that  would  be  deemed  disgraceful  in  any 
king,  shameful  in  any  man,  that  Christians  ascribe  to 
the  King  of  Kings,  to  the  Holy  One  of  Israel!  To  the 
Jew  the  very  idea  of  this  is  blasphemous. 

If  Jesus  were  God,  one  of  a  so-called  Trinity  in  Unity, 
then  it  must  have  been  to  himself,  as  one  with  God,  that 
his  prayer,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me  ?  "  was  addressed.  And  since  it  is  manifestly  absurd 
to  suppose  that  he  would,  under  such  circumstances, 
pray  to  himself,  and  appeal  to  himself  to  come  to  his  own 
rescue,  and  reproach  himself  for  having  forsaken  him- 
self, therefore  his  own  prayer  is  a  proof  that  he  was  not 
God.  "  God  is  not  a  man,  nor  the  son  of  man."  ^  Jesus 
himself  bore  evidence  to  the  unity  of  God.  When  he 
was  asked,  Which  is  the  first  commandment  of  all  ?  he 
answered,  "The  first  of  all  the  commandments  is,  Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  ^  This  formal 
acknowledgment  by  Jesus  of  the  Unity  of  God  is  one  of 

*  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  ^  Numb,  xxiii.  19. 

^  Mark  xii.  29. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS       25 

those  embarrassing  declarations  that  the  typical  Chris- 
tian finds  it  convenient  to  ignore. 

According  to  the  New  Testament  theory,  God  had  a 
Son,  who  was  a  part  of  the  Godhead,  and  who  came 
down  from  Heaven  and  inhabited  for  a  time  the  person 
of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Now,  how  could  a  woman  who 
bore  God  within  her,  who  was  thus  possessed  by  God, 
whose  entire  being  must  have  been  purified  and  spiri- 
tualized to  a  degree  that  the  mind  of  man  cannot  reaUze, 
who  must  in  consequence  have  become  so  infused  with 
the  nature  of  God  as  to  be  inferior  in  purity,  holiness,  and 
other  Divine  attributes  only  to  God  Himself — how 
could  such  a  woman  endure  the  thought  of  marriage 
with  a  man,  and  marry  a  man,  and  become  the  mother 
of  his  cliildren  ?  Such  a  woman  should  have  been  trans- 
lated to  Heaven.  And  since  all  Christians  believe,  or 
profess  to  believe,  in  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  then  are  the  Roman  Catholics,  who  wor- 
ship her  and  pay  her  divine  homage,  far  more  consistent 
Christians  than  are  the  Protestants,  who  treat  her  with 
as  Httle  reverence  and  respect  as  Jesus  did.  For  Jesus 
denied  himself  to  her,  his  mother,  when  she  went  to  see 
him.^  His  was  a  very  poor  example  to  set  of  obedi- 
ence to  the  Fifth  Commandment.  We  all  know  what  the 
Bible  says  about  him  "who  Ughtly  esteemeth  his  father 
or  his  mother."  ^ 

^  Matt.  xii.  46-50;  Mark  iii.  31-35.  ^  Deut.  xxvii.  i6. 


25      A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO  CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 


Another  of  the  many  erroneous  ideas  entertained  by 
Christians  is  the  belief  that  the  New  Testament  has  as 
much  claim  to  authenticity  and  to  be  regarded  as  the 
Word  of  God  as  the  Jewish  Scriptures  have.  But,  if 
the  New  Testament  be  the  Word  of  God,  how  comes  it 
that  there  are  so  many  errors  and  contradictions  in  it  ? 

For  instance :  We  read  in  the  Gospel  of  John  that 
Jesus  said  to  the  Jews :  "And  the  Father  Himself,  which 
hath  sent  me,  hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ye  have 
neither  heard  His  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  His  shape."  * 
But  in  the  Pentateuch  we  read :  "And  the  Eternal  said 
unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  Ye  have  seen  that  I  have  talked  with  you  from 
HeavenJ^  ^  And  again,  "Did  ever  people  hear  the 
voice  of  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as 
thou  hast  heard,  and  live?"  ^ 

In  one  Gospel  Jesus  says:  "That  all  men  should 
honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father"  ^;  and  in 
another  he  says :  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?  there 
is  none  good  but  One,  that  is,  God."  » 

According  to  the  New  Testament,  Abraham  came 
"out  of  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  dweh  in  Charan; 
and  from  thence,  when  his  father  was  dead,  he  removed 
him  into  this  land,  wherein  ye  now  dwell."  «  But  we 
learn  from  Genesis  that  Terah  was  seventy  years  old 
when  Abraham  was  born;  that  Terah  lived  two  hun- 
dred and  five  years,  and  died  in  Charan ;  and  that  Abra- 

'  John  V.  37.       '  Exod.  xx.  22.      ^  Deut.  iv.  12,  33,  36;  v.  23-26. 
*  John  V.  23.         ^  Luke  xviii.  19.        •  Acts  vii.  4. 


ON    CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS       27 

ham  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  he  left  Charan.* 
Therefore  Terah  must  have  lived  sixty  years  after  the 
departure  of  Abraham. 

We  are  also  told  in  the  New  Testament  that  Jacob, 
after  his  death,  was  ''carried  over  into  Sychem,  and  laid 
in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for  a  sum  of 
money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor,  the  father  of  Sychem."  ' 
But  Jacob  was  buried  in  Hebron,  in  the  cave  of  the  field 
of  Machpelah,  which  Abraham  had  bought  from  Eph- 
ron  the  Hittite.^  It  was  Jacob  who  bought  a  piece  of 
land  from  Hamor,  Shechem's  father,  and  built  an  altar 
there. ^  The  New  Testament  has  got  mixed  up  over  the 
two  transactions. 

Matthew  «  makes  Jesus  say  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
Elias  (Elijah),  the  prophet,  who  was  to  precede  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah ;  but  St.  John,  in  his  Gospel,  denies 
that  the  Baptist  was  Elias. « 

Matthew  says,  "For  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly ;  so  shall  the  son  of  man 
be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  ' 
But  according  to  the  Gospel  accounts  of  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  he  was  laid  in  the  tomb  on  Friday 
night,  and  rose  before  dawn  on  Sunday  morning.  How 
can  a  period  of  thirty-six  hours  be  made  into  three  days 
and  three  nights  ? 

The  Gospels  claim  that  Jesus  was  not  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph, but  the  son  of  God,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they 
rest  his  claim  to  the  Messiahship  on  his  descent,  through 
Joseph,  from  Eang  David.  And  in  tracing  the  geneal- 
ogy of  Joseph,  Matthew  makes  him  descend  from  David 

'  Gen.  xi.  26,  32;  xii.  4.  '  Acts  vii.  15,  16.         ^  Gen.  1.  13. 

*  Ibid.,  xxxiii.  19.        »  Matt.  xi.  14.        «  John  i.  21.       ''  Matt.  xii.  40. 


28      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

through  Solomon  and  the  kings  of  Judah  * ;  while  Luke 
makes  him  descend  from  David  through  Nathan  ^  and  a 
line  entirely  different  to  that  given  by  Matthew.  Luke, 
indeed,  carries  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  up  to  the  antedi- 
luvian period  through  Cainan,  "which  was  the  son  of 
Enos,  which  was  the  son  of  Seth,  which  was  the  son  of 
Adam,  which  was  the  son  of  God"  ^;  thus  making  out 
that  Adam  was  the  son  of  God  in  the  same  way  that  Seth 
was  the  son  of  Adam.  Thus  we  see  how  Luke,  or  who- 
ever wrote  the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name,  was  imbued 
with  the  ideas  of  heathen  mythology. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  continue  this  part  of  the  subject 
any  further.  There  are  so  many  errors,  contradictions, 
and  absurdities  contained  in  the  New  Testament  that 
the  Almighty  seems  to  have  taken  care  that  the  people 
of  Israel,  His  witnesses,  should  have  no  excuse  for  accept- 
ing it  as  His  revealed  word. 

Another  delusion  cherished  by  Christians  in  general 
is  that  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  must  have  said  and  done 
all  the  things  attributed  to  them  by  the  Gospels,  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  in  the  manner  related  in  the  Gospels, 
and  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  Apostles  whose 
names  they  bear.  But  none  of  these  things  can  they 
prove ;  and  when  they  set  up  the  New  Testament  against 
the  Old,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  them. 

To  judge  from  the  Gospel  narratives,  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles  must  have  been  very  prominent  personages  in 
Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  must  have  played  a  very  im- 
portant part  in  Jewish  affairs ;  for  they  are  said  to  have 
cast  out  devils  from  any  number  of  people,  to  have 
brought  the  dead  back  to  life,  to  have  restored  sight  to 

J  Matt.  i.  6,  7.  ''  Luke  iii.  31.  ^  Ibid.,  38. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS    TO   CONVERT   JEWS       29 

the  blind,  health  to  the  sick,  and  full  physical  vigor  to 
the  old  and  decrepit,  the  lame  and  the  crippled ;  to  have 
been  followed  about  by  the  multitude  in  thousands ;  to 
have  preached  in  the  Temple,  the  synagogues,  and  other 
public  places ;  and  to  have  argued  with,  denounced,  and 
confounded  the  High  Priest,  the  scribes,  and  the  Phari- 
sees. Jesus  is  said  to  have  had  his  fame  spread  abroad ; 
to  have  aroused  the  jealousy  and  enmity  of  the  High 
Priest  and  other  rulers  and  leaders  among  the  Jews; 
and  to  have  been  conspired  against  and  hunted  to  death 
by  them.  When  Jesus  was  brought  before  Pilate,  the 
latter  is  said  to  have  called  together  the  chief  priests,  the 
rulers,  and  the  people;  to  have  argued  the  case  of  Jesus 
with  them;  and  to  have  sentenced  him  to  be  crucified, 
only  because  the  chief  priests  persuaded  the  multitude 
to  demand  his  death,  and  the  people  became  so  violent 
in  their  demonstrations  that  Pilate,  although  supported 
and  protected  by  the  Roman  garrison,  was  frightened  by 
the  threatening  attitude  of  the  Jews,  and  had,  practi- 
cally, to  sacrifice  Jesus  in  order  to  save  himself.  And 
it  is  related  in  the  Gospels  that  when  Jesus  was  cruci- 
fied, the  sun  was  darkened  over  the  whole  land  for  three 
hours,  the  veil  of  the  Temple  was  rent  in  twain  from  the 
top  to  the  bottom,  the  earth  did  quake,  the  rocks  were 
rent,  the  graves  were  opened,  and  many  bodies  of  the 
saints  which  slept  arose,  and  came  out  of  their  graves 
after  his  resurrection,  and  went  into  the  holy  city,  and 
appeared  unto  many.^  Who  the  many  saints  were  who 
thus  rose  from  out  of  their  graves  is  not  stated,  and  might 
be  difficult  to  state,  for  canonization  was  then  as  un- 
known among  the  Jews  as  it  is  now  and  has  ever  been. 

>Matt.xxvii.  45,  51-53. 


30      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

All  these  wonderful  things  are  said  by  the  Gospels  to 
have  happened;  and  yet  the  Jews  who  were  at  Jerusa- 
lem at  the  time  appear  to  have  known  nothing  about 
them;  and  the  Jews  who  were  in  Rome  and  other  cities 
appear  to  have  heard  nothing  about  them  from  their 
friends  and  correspondents  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea. 
The  Romans  appear  to  have  known  nothing  about  them. 
For  there  is  no  Jewish  account  of  them ;  no  heathen  his- 
torian of  the  day  mentions  them ;  and  there  is  no  record 
and  no  evidence  of  Jesus  having  been  crucified,  and  of 
the  great  wonders  attending  his  crucifixion  having  oc- 
curred, save  and  except  the  Gospels  themselves. 

Not  only  have  we  no  reason  to  believe  that  Jesus  was 
put  to  death,  or  that  the  Jews  had  any  hand  in  his  death ; 
but  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  the  contraiy.  For 
if  Jesus  had  been  crucified  in  the  manner  related  in  the 
Gospels,  and  if  his  death  had  been  brought  about  by  the 
High  Priest  and  other  leaders  among  the  Jews,  and  had 
been  attended  by  the  wonderful  events  said  to  have  ac- 
companied it,  these  things  must  have  been  known  to 
some  of  the  learned  Jews  of  the  period,  and,  among 
others,  to  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus.  He,  indeed, 
must  have  known  more  of  the  doings  and  death  of  Jesus, 
if  they  were  such  as  described  in  the  Gospels,  than  any 
one  who  came  after  him ;  but  he  takes  no  notice  of  them 
at  all;  for  the  passage  in  Josephus  relating  to  Jesus  is 
admitted  to  be  a  pious  fraud  of  the  church  interpolated 
at  a  later  time.  That  it  could  not  have  been  written  by 
Josephus  will  be  evident  to  any  one  who  will  read  the 
remainder  of  the  chapter  in  which  it  occurs;  and  who- 
ever inserted  it  in  that  particular  chapter  must  have  been 
possessed  of  a  keen  sense  of  humor,  or  else  he  would 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       3 1 

have  put  it  in  a  more  suitable  place.  And  although  Jo- 
sephus  does  not  spare  Herod  by  concealing  any  of  his 
misdeeds,  yet  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the  extraordinary 
cruelty  charged  against  him  by  the  Gospels,  namely, 
that  of  ordering  the  slaughter  of  all  the  children  at  Beth- 
lehem and  in  its  vicinity. 

It  is  related  in  the  New  Testament  that  when  Paul 
went  to  Rome,  he  called  together  the  chief  persons 
among  the  Jews  there,  in  order  to  justify  to  them  his 
conduct  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  they  told  him,  ''We 
neither  received  letters  out  of  Judea  concerning 
thee,  neither  any  of  the  brethren  that  came  shewed  or 
spake  any  harm  of  thee."  ^  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  they  had  also  heard  nothing  from  Jerusalem,  or 
from  persons  from  there,  about  Jesus,  and  his  supposed 
crucifixion,  and  the  alleged  wonderful  events  attending 
it;  for,  if  they  had,  the  circumstance  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  mentioned.  And  it  is  evident  from  the 
Talmud  that  the  curiosity  of  the  learned  Jews  had  never 
been  interested  in  Jesus  and  his  teachings  until  so  long 
after  his  time  that  reliable  information  about  him  was 
unobtainable. 

"And  the  graves  were  opened;  and  many  bodies  of 
the  saints  which  slept  arose.  And  came  out  of  their  graves 
after  his  resurrection,  and  went  into  the  holy  city,  and 
appeared  unto  many."  ^  What  a  rich  flavor  these  two 
verses  have  of  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  Christians  at 
a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  death  of  the  Apostles! 
In  what  respect,  it  may  be  asked,  was  Jerusalem  a  holy 
city  to  Jesus  and  the  Apostles?  And  who  were  the 
many  persons  who  were  venerated  as  saints  by  them  ? 

^  Acts  xxviii.  21.  '  Matt,  xxvii.  52,  53. 


32      A   JEWISH    REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

It  is  well  known  that  the  lists  of  what  have  been  con- 
sidered by  the  Christians  as  canonical  books  have  dif- 
fered in  different  ages;  and  that  some  books  now  ac- 
knowledged by  all  Christians  to  be  forgeries  were  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries  considered  as  equally  apos- 
tolic as  those  now  received,  and,  as  such,  were  publicly 
read  in  the  Christian  churches.  The  reason  why  there 
are  not  now  other  gospels,  different  and  contradictory  to 
those  now  received,  is  because  the  Christian  sect  or  party 
which  finally  got  the  better  of  the  other  sects,  and  styled 
itself  Catholic  or  orthodox,  piously  took  care  to  burn  and 
destroy  their  adversaries  and  their  gospels  with  them. 
They  likewise  took  care  to  hunt  up  and  burn  the  books 
of  the  pagan  adversaries  of  Christianity,  because  they 
were  shockingly  offensive  to  pious  ears. 

From  the  very  beginning.  Christians  have  not  agreed 
among  themselves  as  to  points  of  faith;  and  there  were 
among  them  as  many  sects,  heresies,  and  quarrels  in  the 
first  century  as  there  are  at  the  present  time.  There  is 
still  extant  a  letter  ascribed  to  Peter,  written  to  James  at 
Jerusalem,  in  which  he  complains  bitterly  of  Paul,  styl- 
ing him  a  lawless  man  and  a  crafty  misrepresenter  of 
him  (Peter)  and  his  doctrine,  because  Paul  ever}^^here 
represented  Peter  as  being  secretly  of  the  same  opinions 
with  himself;  and  against  this  he  entered  his  protest, 
and  declared  that  he  reprobated  the  doctrine  of  Paul. 
The  Apostles  themselves,  so  far  from  being  considered 
as  inspired  and  infaUible,  were  frequently  contradicted, 
thwarted,  and  set  at  naught  by  their  own  converts;  and 
no  sooner  were  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  off  the  stage  than 
forgeries  of  all  kinds  broke  in  with  irresistible  force. 
Gospels,  Epistles,  Acts,  and  Revelations  without  num- 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS      33 

ber,  published  in  the  names  and  under  the  feigned  au- 
thority of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  abounded  in  the  Chris- 
tian church.  All  the  different  sects  of  Christians,  with- 
out a  known  exception,  altered,  interpolated,  and  without 
scruple  garbled  their  different  copies  of  their  various  and 
discordant  gospels  in  order  to  adapt  them  to  their  jarring 
and  whimsical  philosophical  notions.  Celsus  accuses 
them  of  this,  and  they  accused  each  other. 


VI. 


Nobody  knows  where,  when,  or  by  whom  the  four 
Gospels  now  extant  were  written;  and  they  were  not 
known  or  heard  of  before  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, that  is,  nearly  a  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles 
were  dead.  The  Je^vish  Christians,  the  disciples  of  the 
twelve  Apostles,  never  received,  but  rejected  every  indi- 
vidual book  of  the  present  New  Testament;  and  they 
held  in  especial  abomination  the  writings  of  Paul,  whom 
they  called  an  apostate.  The  facts  recorded  in  these 
books  were  nowhere  so  little  believed  as  in  Judea, 
among  the  people  in  whose  sight  they  are  said  to  have 
been  wrought,  and  where  they  should,  if  true,  have  met 
with  the  most  credence.  And  the  number  of  Jewish 
Christians  dwindled  so  very  rapidly  that,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  Gentile  converts,  Christianity  would  have  per- 
ished in  its  cradle. 

It  is  said  that  several  sects  of  Christians  in  the  first 
century,  in  the  apostolic  era,  as  the  Basildeans,  for  ex- 
ample, denied  that  Jesus  had  been  crucified;  and  that 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  also  denied  it.     It  is 


34       A   JEWISH   REPLY    TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

also  said  that  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception 
was  borrowed  from  the  Koran  of  the  Mahometans. 
Certain  it  is  that,  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century,  the  im- 
maculate conception  was  condemned  by  St.  Bernard  as 
a  presumptuous  novelty.^ 

As  an  instance  of  the  little  value  that  is  attached  by 
Christians  themselves  to  the  New  Testament,  I  may 
refer  to  the  arguments  used  by  the  Rev.  Father  Younan, 
who  has  recently  been  holding  a  mission  in  this  city  ^  for 
the  gathering  in  of  Protestants  to  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic church;  a  work  that  appears  to  have  aroused  much 
indignation  among  the  members  of  the  Protestant  Min- 
isterial Association,  who  do  not  like  being  done  by  as  they 
do  to  others.  In  one  of  our  city  newspapers  Father  You- 
nan is  reported  to  have  said,  with  regard  to  the  New 
Testament,  that  it  is  not  the  authority,  but  only  a  part  of 
the  teaching;  that  the  teaching  authority  is  vested  in  the 
church,  and  not  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  the  latter 
only  possesses  the  authority  that  has  been  given  to  it  by 
the  church ;  that  it  was  the  church  of  Rome  which  decid- 
ed what  part  of  the  Christian  writings  should  be  accept- 
ed as  canonical  and  incorporated  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  that  the  church  of  Rome  was  the  first  custodian 
of  these  writings;  that  they  belonged  to  the  church  of 
Rome  exclusively  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  faith ; 
that  they  did  not  even  exist  in  a  collected  form  until  the 
fourth,  and  were  never  circulated  until  the  fourteenth 
century ;  and  that  the  teaching  of  the  church  is  of  higher 
authority  than  the  New  Testament. 

Semler,  after  spending  years  in  the  study  of  ecclesi- 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  5,  p.  42  (Bohn,  1854). 
^  Montreal.     This  article  was  published  in  The  Jemish  Times  in 
April,  1900. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO    CONVERT   JEWS       35 

astical  history  and  antiquities,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that,  except  the  Gospel  and  the  Revelation  of  John,  the 
whole  New  Testament  was  a  collection  of  forgeries  writ- 
ten by  the  partisans  of  the  different  parties  in  the  early 
Christian  church,  and  entitled  apostolic  in  order  the 
better  to  answer  their  purpose. 

Evanson,  in  his  work  on  "The  Dissonance  of  the  Four 
Evangehsts,"  asserts  the  spuriousness  of  the  Gospel  of 
John,  which  Semler  spared  in  the  general  wreck  he  made 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. As  Semler  excepted  the  Gospel  of  John  only,  so 
Evanson  excepted  the  Gospel  of  Luke  only,  from  the 
charge  of  spuriousness ;  though  he  says  that  it  is  grossly 
corrupted  and  interpolated. 

English,  in  his  book  on  "  The  Grounds  of  Christian- 
ity," comes  to  the  conclusion  "that  the  New  Testament 
can  neither  subsist  with  the  Old  Testament  nor  with- 
out it;  and  that  the  New  Testament  system  was  built 
first  upon  a  mistake,  and  afterward  buttressed  up  with 
forged  and  apocryphal  documents."  ^  And  English 
thus  sums  up  his  examination  of  the  claims  of  Jesus  to 
the  Messiahship  of  the  Old  Testament : 

"Indeed,  nothing  appears  to  be  more  dissimilar  than 
the  character  of  the  Messiah  as  given  by  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  and  that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It  seems 
scarcely  credible  that  a  man  who,  though  amiable  and 
virtuous,  yet  lived  in  a  low  state,  was  poor,  Hving  upon 
alms,  without  wealth,  and  without  power;  and  who, 
though  by  misfortune,  died  the  death  of  a  malefactor, 
crucified  between  two  robbers — a  death  exactly  paral- 
lel with  being  hanged  at  the  public  gallows  in  the  pres- 

1  P.  99- 


36       A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

ent  day— should  ever  be  taken  for  that  mighty  prince, 
that  universal  potentate  and  benefactor  of  the  human 
race,  foretold  in  the  splendid  language  of  the  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament." ' 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  any  discussion  of  the 
claims  of  Jesus  to  the  Messiahship  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. During  the  century  preceding  the  destruction 
of  the  second  Temple,  the  depressed  condition  of  the  Jews 
under  the  Romans  naturally  excited  a  desire  among 
them  to  regain  their  liberty;  and  this  led  the  impatient 
and  weak-minded  to  grasp  at  every  chance,  however  tri- 
fling, that  seemed  to  promise  relief.  As  a  consequence, 
the  land  fairly  swarmed  with  false  prophets  and  pre- 
tended Messiahs;  some  of  whom  created  a  great  stir 
among  the  Jews,  and  drew  great  numbers  after  them, 
and  were  supported  by  force  of  arms.  Hundreds  of 
thousands  of  Jews  were  slaughtered  by  the  Romans  on 
account  of  these  various  pretenders.  Josephus  has  no- 
ticed some  of  them.  So  that,  so  far  as  the  circumstances 
and  the  feelings  of  the  Jews  were  concerned,  the  time 
was  a  most  favorable  one  for  the  success  of  Jesus  as  a 
claimant  to  the  Messiahship;  and  yet  we  are  told  in  the 
New  Testament  that  his  claims  were  so  laughed  at  and 
ridiculed  by  the  Jews  that  the  Apostles  lost  their  tem- 
pers, shook  their  garments,  and  told  the  Jews  that  hence- 
forth they  would  go  to  the  Gentiles.  We  can  well  under- 
stand and  believe  this.  For  although  Christian  Evan- 
gehsts  of  the  present  day  try  to  comfort  themselves  with 
the  delusion  that  Moses  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ityship  of  God,  yet  we,  who  know  differently,  can  well 
understand  how  the  Jews  of  any  and  every  age  would 

^  P.  14. 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO  CONVERT   JEWS       37 

ridicule  the  claims  of  any  man  who  should  pretend  to  be 
the  son  of  their  God,  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  If  these 
worthy  Christians  would  only  exercise  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion a  little  of  the  excellent  common  sense  that  distin- 
guishes them  in  their  business  affairs,  they  would  see  for 
themselves  that  the  fact  that  the  Jews  of  1,900  years  ago 
laughed  at  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  God— to 
be  God  the  Son— is  conclusive  proof  that  the  Jews  of 
that  time  held  the  same  belief  of  the  Unity  of  God  that 
the  Jews  of  the  present  day  do. 

Christian  Evangelists  have  been  told,  in  tracts  that 
have  been  written  for  their  comfort  by  other  Christian 
EvangeHsts,  that  modern  Judaism  is  not  Mosaism,  but 
Rabbinism;  that  is,  that  the  modern  Jews,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  their  rabbis,  have  come  to  believe  in  the  abso- 
lute Unity  of  God,  but  that  Moses  taught  the  Jews  of 
olden  time  that  God  was  a  Trinity.  The  Evan- 
gelists have  been  told  in  these  Christian  tracts  that 
the  old  Jewish  doctrine  was  changed  by  the  rabbis 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  as  coming  from  a  corrupt  and 
persecuting  Christianity;  and  that  Moses  Maimonides 
gave  an  absolute  sense  to  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead 
which  had,  before  then,  been  accepted  by  the  Jews 
in  the  compound  sense  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity.  Well, 
if  this  be  so,  how  came  it  that  the  Jews  of  1,900  years 
ago  laughed  at  and  rejected  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  the 
Messiahship,  while  they  followed  and  supported  by 
force  of  arms  so  many  other  pretenders?  It  was 
simply  because  Jesus  pretended,  or  allowed  it  to  be 
claimed  for  him,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  that  he 
was  God  the  Son;  while  the  fundamental  article  of 
the  Jewish  Religion  was,  then  as  now,  and  as  it  has 


38       A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

ever  been,  that  the  Eternal  is  One  Alone,  and  besides 
Him  there  is  none  else. 

Josephus  was  almost  contemporary  with  Jesus,  and 
he  wrote,  "Moses  dehvers  the  doctrine  of  one  god, 
uncreated,  eternal,  unchangeable,  infinitely  glorious, 
and  incomprehensible,  but  through  His  works." 

The  prayer-books  of  the  orthodox  Jews  date  back 
to  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  They  were 
composed  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  "Great  Assem- 
bly," the  most  learned  and  celebrated  men  of  that  age, 
among  whom  were  the  prophets  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
Malachi,  and  Daniel,  besides  many  others  of  scarcely 
less  note.  The  form  of  prayers  they  then  constructed 
has  ever  since  continued  in  use  by  all  Israelites;  and 
these  prayers  teach  us  the  absolute  Unity  of  God. 
Christian  Evangelists  may  therefore  form  some  idea  of 
the  amount  of  nonsense  they  talk  when  they  under- 
take to  tell  us  that  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 
before  then  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinityship 
of  God;  and  that  Modern  Judaism  is  Rabbinism  and 
not  Mosaism. 

"Do  you  know,"  wrote  Rousseau,  "of  many  Chris- 
tians who  have  taken  the  pains  to  examine,  with  care, 
what  the  Jews  have  to  say  against  them?  If  some 
persons  have  seen  anything  of  the  kind,  it  is  in  the 
books  of  Christians.  A  fine  way,  truly,  to  get  in- 
structed in  the  arguments  of  their  adversaries." 

As  already  mentioned,  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into 
any  discussion  of  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  our  Scriptures.  We  do  not  beUeve  that  he 
was  the  Messiah,  because  he  possessed  none  of  the 
characteristics  that  were  to  distinguish  the  Messiah; 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS       39 

and  because  none  of  the  prophecies  connected  with 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah  have  yet  been  fulfilled. 

It  is  immaterial  to  the  people  of  Israel  whether  the 
narrative  of  the  Gospels  be  historically  true  or  not. 
It  can  make  no  difference  to  us  whether  Jesus  was  a 
prophet  or  not — whether  he  and  the  Apostles  per- 
formed miracles,  and  said  and  did  all  the  things  at- 
tributed to  them  by  the  New  Testament,  or  not.  It 
is  sufficient  for  us  that  the  Christian  religion  teaches 
the  worship  of  other  Gods  than  the  Eternal,  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel;  and  we  have  been  told: 

''If  there  arise  in  the  midst  of  thee  a  prophet,  or 
a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  he  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a 
token ;  And  the  sign  or  the  token  come  to  pass,  where- 
of he  spoke  unto  thee,  saying.  Let  us  go  after  other 
gods,  which  thou  dost  not  know,  and  let  us  serve  them ; 
Then  shalt  thou  not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that 
prophet,  or  unto  that  dreamer  of  dreams;  for  the 
Eternal  your  God  proveth  you,  to  know  whether  indeed 
ye  love  the  Eternal  your  God  with  all  your  heart  and 
with  all  your  soul.  After  the  Eternal  your  God  shall 
ye  walk,  and  Him  shall  ye  feai,  and  His  command- 
ments shall  ye  keep,  and  His  voice  shall  ye  obey, 
and  Him  shall  ye  serve,  and  unto  Him  shall  ye 
cleave."  ^ 

Our  Christian  friends  are  very  fond  of  talking  about 
the  blindness  of  the  Jews;  but  what  about  their  own 
blindness  ?  For  so  far  as  regards  their  respective  con- 
ceptions of  the  power,  dignity,  and  glory  of  the  Al- 
mighty, the  vision  of  the  Jew  is  as  that  of  the  eagle 
soaring  aloft  in  the  clear  light  of   the   noonday  sun; 

^  Deut.  xiii.  2-5. 


40      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

while  that  of  the  Christian  is  as  that  of  a  mole  still 
burrowing  in  the  darkness  of  the  heathen  mythologies, 
whose  gods  were  not  even  able  to  protect  their  own 
offspring.  The  Jews  may  be  blind — they  may  be 
blind  in  many  respects — and  they  are  unquestionably 
bhnd  when  it  comes  to  reading  their  Scriptures  through 
Christian  spectacles;  but  the  light  can  shine  brightly 
when  they  use  their  own  eyes. 

If  the  Jews  are  blind,  where  shall  we  find  a  word 
that  will  at  all  adequately  express  the  destitution  of 
sight  exhibited  by  our  Christian  friends?  What  a 
comment  on  their  creed  is  furnished  by  the  dying 
words  of  the  founder  of  their  religion,  "My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?"  What  text  for 
a  sermon  on  the  vanity  of  man  can  surpass  in  mourn- 
ful interest  that  furnished  by  this  last  despairing  prayer 
of  the  frail  creature  who  would  have  associated  himself 
with  his  Creator,  and  have  arrogated  to  himself  the 
attributes  of  the  Eternal! 

When,  after  the  sin  of  the  molten  calf,  the  Almighty 
would  have  destroyed  His  people,  because  it  was  a 
stiff-necked  people,  and  offered  to  make  of  Moses  a 
great  nation,  Moses  entreated  Him  to  pardon  them, 
and  to  let  His  presence  still  go  among  them,  even 
because  they  were  a  stiff-necked  people.  A  stiff-necked 
people  could  be  relied  on  to  remember  the  law  of 
Moses,  the  servant  of  God,  which  He  commanded  to 
him  in  Horeb  for  all  time;  end  though  the  sins  of  the 
Jews  have  been  without  number,  yet  have  they  re- 
turned in  humility  and  repentance  to  the  God  of  their 
fathers;  and  persuasion  and  persecution  through  thou- 
sands of  years  have  failed  to  turn  them  from  their 


ON   CHRISTIAN   ATTEMPTS   TO   CONVERT   JEWS      41 

allegiance  to  their  God,  or  shake  their  faith  and  be- 
lief in  their  Redeemer,  or  weaken  their  hope  and  re- 
liance in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  "He  is  God  in  the 
heaven  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath;  there  is 
none  else."  * 

Our  Christian  friends  will  lose  nothing,  either  now 
or  hereafter,  by  letting  the  Jews  work  out  their  own 
salvation,  and  with  it  the  salvation  of  all  mankind,  in 
the  way  they  are  taught  by  their  Scriptures.  Instead 
of  attempting  the  vain  and  impossible  task  of  convert- 
ing the  Jews  into  Christians,  or  even — if  there  be  any 
sophistical  difference  between  the  two  propositions — 
that  of  persuading  the  Jews  to  see  in  Jesus  the  Mes- 
siah of  their  Scriptures,  rather  let  all  intelligent 
Christians  join  with  us  in  praying  that  the  time  will 
soon  come  when  ten  men  of  diverse  languages,  even 
ten  Christian  Evangelists,  shall  take  hold  of  the  skirt 
of  him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying,  "We  will  go  with  you, 
for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you."  ^ 

'  Deut.  iv.  39.  '  Zech.  viii.  23. 


From  The  Jewish  Times,  Montreal, 

April  13,  1900. 

With  this  issue  we  complete  the  series  of  able  pa- 
pers by  Mr.  Lewis  A.  Hart  on  "Christian  Attempts  to 
Convert  Jews."  The  demand  for  the  numbers  of  the 
paper  containing  these  articles  has  gone  on  increasing 
from  the  start,  orders  coming  from  all  parts  of  the 
Dominion  and  the  United  States.  The  interest  awak- 
ened in  the  subject  dealt  with  by  Mr.  Hart  is  not  sur- 
prising, the  publication  having  been  happily  timed  to 
meet  the  extraordinary  efforts  recently  put  forth  by  the 
conversionists  to  make  it  appear  that  there  is  a  move- 
ment among  Jews  toward  Christianity.  We  are  quite 
aware,  however,  that  the  missions  to  Jews  in  this  city 
have  been  absolutely  barren  of  results.  The  men  who 
have  undertaken  the  work  are  so  poorly  equipped  in 
education  and  ability  that  their  audacity  in  presuming 
to  approach  Jews  with  the  object  of  inducing  them  to 
abandon  their  faith  only  received,  as  it  merited,  smiles 
of  amusement  and  contempt.  But  we  suppose  we 
must  endure  the  infliction.  It  pleases  them  and  it 
does  not  hurt  us,  and  we  can,  while  enduring  it,  sym- 
pathize with  the  Protestants  for  whom  the  Catholics 
have  opened  missions,  and  condole  with  the  Catholics 
the  Protestants  are  trying  to  convert.  The  movement 
all  round  is  exceedingly  droll.  But  we  Jews  are  con- 
tent to  let  them  all  go  their  own  way,  our  only  desire 
being  to  be  allowed  to  go  our  way  without  interference 
or  molestation.  The  demand  for  Mr.  Hart's  papers  is 
so  great  that  he  has  been  urged  to  pubHsh  them  in 
pamphlet  form,  and  we  hope  he  may  do  so,  for  they 
deserve  the  widest  circulation. 


From  The  Jewish  Times,  Montreal, 

November  23, 1900. 

With  the  first  number  of  our  fourth  volume  we  will 
begin  the  publication  of  a  paper  entitled  "Some  Ques- 
tions Answered/'  by  Mr.  Lewis  A.  Hart,  M.A.,  of  this 
city.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Hart  contrib- 
uted a  series  of  able  papers  to  The  Jewish  Times, 
commencing  last  February  and  extending  through 
several  subsequent  issues,  on  the  subject  of  "Christian 
Attempts  to  Convert  Jews."  Those  papers  attracted 
considerable  attention,  and  a  Christian  gentleman 
wrote  Mr.  Hart  proposing  certain  questions.  The 
forthcoming  paper  will  contain  the  answers,  and  from 
what  we  know  of  Mr.  Hart's  lucid  style  of  argument, 
our  readers  may  rest  assured  that  the  answers  will  be 
complete  in  all  respects. 


SOME    (QUESTIONS 
ANSWERED 


After  the  first  part  of  the  article  on  ''Christian 
Attempts  to  Convert  Jews,"  contributed  by  me  some 
months  ago  to  your  columns,  was  pubHshed,  I  received 
a  letter  from  a  Protestant  clergyman  of  this  city,  in 
which  he  propounded  a  number  of  questions/  It  may 
be  of  interest  to  your  readers  to  know  what  these 
questions  were,  and  to  hear  some  of  the  answers  that 
may  be  made  to  them. 

The  first  question  was,  "How  do  you  reconcile 
your  own  attitude  of  non-interference  with  Gen- 
tiles in  their  religious  opinions  with  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures—for example,  the  promise  to  Abraham,  and 
the  67th  Psalm?  Does  not  God  intend  you  to  be 
missionaries  to  all  nations,  that  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham may  extend  to  us?" 

From  a  controversial  point  of  view,  the  question 
asked  is  in  many  respects  amusing;  for  it  clearly  means 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  my  correspondent,  the  Jews 
possess  the  true  religion,  and  that  he  and  other  Gen- 
tiles are  wrong  in  their  religious  beliefs;  that  God  does 
intend  the  Jews  to  be  missionaries  for  the  conversion 

'  The  present  article  was  published  in  The  Jewish  Times  cl  the  7th 
December,  1900. 


46      A   JEWISH   REPLY    TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

of  all  other  nations  to  Judaism;  that  the  conversion  of 
Christians  and  other  Gentiles  to  Judaism  is  necessary 
in  order  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  may  extend  to 
them;  and  that  our  Christian  friends  have  cause  for 
complaint  against  the  Jews,  because  we  do  not  make 
converts  of  them  to  the  Jewish  religion.  And  the 
practical  conclusion  that  my  correspondent  deduces 
from  all  this  is:  that  since  the  Jews  will  not  perform 
the  duty  that  he  considers  to  have  been  put  upon 
them,  of  converting  Gentiles  to  Judaism,  so  that  the 
latter  may  participate  in  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  it 
has  therefore  become  his  duty  to  try  to  convert  Jews 
to  Christianity,  so  that  we  Israelites  may  share  in  the 
errors  and  the  fate  of  Gentiles  to^whom,  in  his  opinion, 
the  blessing  is  denied! 

There  is  nothing  in  any  of  the  promises  made  to 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  that  can  be  construed  into 
any  direction  or  instruction  to  them,  or  to  their  de- 
scendants, to  become  missionaries  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  usually  understood  and  applied,  namely, 
to  become  propagators  of  their  rehgion  among  the 
Gentiles;  nor  have  they  ever  deemed  it  to  be  their 
duty  to  do  so.  The  three  Hebrew  patriarchs  were 
important  personages  in  their  day,  and  were  possessed 
of  influence  enough  to  have  gained  any  number  of 
converts  to  their  rehgion;  but  Holy  Writ  only  records 
their  anxiety  to  keep  themselves  and  their  children 
separate  and  distinct  from  the  peoples  among  whom 
they  dwelt.  *'A  prince  of  God  thou  art  among  us,"  * 
said  the  children  of  Heth  to  Abraham;  but  even  his 
servants,  born  in  his  house  and  circumcised,  he  ex- 

'  Gen.  xxiii.  6. 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  47 

eluded  from  participation  in  his  worship  of  the  Al- 
mighty. "And  Abraham  said  unto  his  young  men, 
Abide  ye  here  with  the  ass,  and  I  and  the  lad  will  go 
yonder,  and  we  will  worship,  and  then  come  again  to 
you."  ^  Certainly,  neither  Abraham  nor  Isaac  nor 
Jacob  was  the  kind  of  missionary  that  my  correspond- 
ent thinks  that  God  intended  the  people  of  Israel  to 
be.  And  when  Jacob  and  his  children  went  down 
into  Egypt,  the  first  care  of  Joseph  was  to  provide 
that  his  father  and  his  brethren  should  dwell  by  them- 
selves in  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  not  associate  with 
the  Egyptians.  Truly,  Joseph  was  as  little  of  a  mis- 
sionary as  his  fathers  had  been. 

When  Moses  led  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt, 
there  went  with  them  a  mixed  multitude.^  This 
mixed  multitude  must  have  consisted  of  Egyptians  and 
other  strangers  who  had  witnessed  and  were  terrified 
by  the  signs  and  wonders  wrought  by  God  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  who  joined  themselves  to  the  children 
of  Israel,  possibly  with  the  idea  that  they  would  be 
safer  with  the  Israelites  than  if  they  remained  behind, 
and  perhaps  with  the  hope  of  sharing  in  the  wealth 
that  the  people  of  Israel  carried  with  them  out  of 
Egypt.  If  the  Israelites  were  intended  by  God  to  be 
missionaries  for  the  conversion  of  Gentiles  to  Judaism, 
— if  their  mission  were  a  proselytizing  one — then  must 
the  action  of  Moses,  in  permitting  this  mixed  multitude 
to  accompany  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  exodus  from 
Egypt  have  been  pleasing  to  the  Almighty  and  praise- 
worthy in  His  sight,  because  there  was  here  afforded 
every  opportunity  to  have  made  converts  of  a  great 

^  Gen.  xxii.  5.  2  e^^q^j  ^j^  ^g 


48      A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

multitude.  But  the  contrary  appears  to  have  been 
the  case.  For  when  the  children  of  Israel  sinned  in 
the  matter  of  the  golden  calf,  the  Eternal  said  to  Moses, 
"Go,  get  thee  down;  for  thy  people  (not  His)  which 
thou  hast  brought  up  out  of  the  land  oj  Egypt  (that  is, 
those  whom  Moses  should  have  left  behind)  hath  be- 
come corrupt."^  It  was  this  mixed  multitude  which 
Aaron  was  unable  to  control,  who  said  to  him,  "Up, 
make  us  gods,  that  shall  go  before  us;  for  of  this  man 
Moses,  who  hath  brought  us  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  we  know  not  what  has  become  of  him."  ^  This 
same  mixed  multitude  it  was  that  exclaimed,  "These 
are  thy  gods,  O  Israel,  that  have  brought  thee  up  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt."  ^  And  it  was  this  foreign  ele- 
ment among  them  that  was  always  stirring  up  the 
children  of  Israel  to  rebellion  and  sin.  "And  the 
mixed  multitude  that  was  among  them  felt  a  lustful 
longing;  and  the  children  of  Israel  also  wept  again, 
and  said,  Who  will  give  us  flesh  to  eat?"* 

Except  for  the  purpose  of  reproaching  Moses  on 
account  of  the  mixed  multitude  which  he  had  allowed 
to  come  with  him  from  Egypt,  the  Almighty  had 
nothing  to  say  to  him  about  them.  To  them  God 
sent  no  messages;  and  for  them  He  gave  no  commands. 
All  His  messages  and  commands  were  expressly  for  the 
children  of  Israel.  "Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  the  house 
of  Jacob,  and  tell  the  children  of  Israel."  "These  are 
the  words  which  thou  shalt  speak  to  the  children  of 
Israel."  Throughout  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  law  the 
same  formula  is  made  use  of:  it  is  always,  "Speak 
unto  the  children  of  Israel";  and  the  mixed  multitude 

1  Exod.  xxxii.  7.         ^  /jjj^^  j^  3  /j^,^  4.         4  Numb.  xi.  4. 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  49 

that   was   with   them   is   continually,    and   apparently 
purposely,  ignored. 

There  is  as  little  in  the  67th,  or  any  other  Psalm,  as 
there  is  in  the  promises  to  Abraham,  that  can  be 
regarded  as  an  instruction  to  the  children  of  Israel  to 
be  missionaries  for  the  conversion  of  Gentiles  to  Juda- 
ism. King  David  was  a  powerful  monarch;  through- 
out the  whole  of  the  Promised  Land — from  the  Medi- 
terranean to  the  Euphrates,  from  Mount  Lebanon  to 
Egypt — his  will  was  law;  he  was  able  to  have  con- 
verted millions  of  men  to  Judaism,  had  he  been  dis- 
posed or  considered  it  his  duty  to  do  so ;  but  the  Bible 
does  not  record  one  instance  of  his  having  made,  or 
of  his  attempting  to  make,  a  convert  to  the  Jewish 
religion.  That,  wherever  his  rule  extended,  he  put 
down  idolatry  and  enforced  the  observance  of  the  seven 
precepts  of  the  sons  of  Noah,  may  be  taken  for  granted, 
for  the  Mosaic  law  commanded  him  to  do  so ;  but  this 
was  a  different  thing  from  making  converts  to  Juda- 
ism. The  religious  zeal  and  fervor  of  the  royal 
Psalmist  cannot  be  questioned;  had  he  been  a  Chris- 
tian or  a  Mahometan  ruler,  he  would  undoubtedly 
have  imposed  his  religion  on  the  nations  whom  he 
subjected  to  his  sway;  but,  being  a  son  of  Israel,  he 
knew  that  God  had  appointed  His  people  to  be  a  na- 
tion separate  and  distinct  from  the  other  famihes  of 
the  earth,  and,  unlike  our  Christian  friends,  he  sought 
not  to  alter  what  the  wisdom  of  the  Almighty,  for  a 
purpose  beneficent  to  mankind,  had  decreed.  ''Then 
went  King  David  in,  and  sat  down  before  the  Eter- 
nal, and  he  said,  .  .  .  Therefore  art  Thou  great,  O 
Eternal  God;  for  there  is  none  like  Thee,  and  there 
4 


50      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

is  no  God  besides  Thee,  in  accordance  with  all  that  we 
have  heard  with  our  ears.  And  who  is  like  Thy 
people,  like  Israel,  the  only  nation  on  the  earth  which 
God  went  to  redeem  for  Himself  as  a  people,  and 
to  acquire  for  Himself  a  name,  and  to  do  for  you 
this  great  deed,  and  fearful  things  for  thy  land,  to 
drive  out,  from  before  Thy  people  which  Thou  hast 
redeemed  for  Thyself  from  Egypt,  nations  and  their 
gods?  For  Thou  hast  estabUshed  for  Thyself  Thy 
people  Israel  as  a  people  unto  Thee  forever;  and 
Thou,  O  Eternal,  art  indeed  become  their  God.  .  .  . 
And  let  Thy  name  be  magnified  unto  everlasting,  that 
men  may  say.  The  Eternal  of  Hosts  is  the  God  over 
Israel;  and  may  the  house  of  Thy  servant  David  be 
established  before  Thee."  ^ 

King  Solomon  was  another  powerful  monarch,  and 
the  wisest  of  men.  In  his  earlier  manhood,  while  he 
was  still  faithful  to  the  God  of  his  fathers,  he  also 
might  have  made  millions  of  converts  to  Judaism,  had 
he  conceived  it  to  be  his  duty  to  do  so;  but  it  evidently 
never  occurred  to  him,  any  more  than  it  did  to  King 
David,  that  God  intended  him  to  be  a  missionary  to 
the  surrounding  nations,  for  there  is  no  instance  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  of  his  making,  or  attempting  to 
make,  any  converts  to  Judaism.  When  King  Solomon 
dedicated  the  Temple,  he  prayed  for  the  strangers,  but 
he  did  not  pray  for  their  conversion  to  Judaism;  nor 
is  there  anything  in  his  prayer  that  can  tend  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  considered  the  conversion  of  the 
strangers  to  Judaism  a  necessary  preliminary  to  their 
obtaining  favor   in    the   sight   of    the    Eternal.     His 

'  2  Sam.  vii.  i8,  22-24,  26. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  5 1 

prayer  was:  "But  also  to  the  stranger,  who  is  not  of 
Thy  people  Israel,  but  cometh  out  of  a  far-off  country 
for  the  sake  of  Thy  name;  For  they  will  hear  of  Thy 
great  name,  and  of  Thy  strong  hand,  and  of  Thy  out- 
stretched arm;  when  he  will  come  and  pray  at  this 
house :  Mayst  Thou  listen  in  Heaven,  the  place  of  Thy 
dwelHng,  and  do  according  to  all  that  the  stranger 
will  call  on  Thee  for;  in  order  that  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  may  know  Thy  name,  to  fear  Thee,  as  do 
Thy  people  Israel;  and  that  they  may  understand 
that  this  house,  which  I  have  built,  is  called  by  Thy 
name."  ^  How  markedly  the  tolerant  and  humane 
spirit  of  Judaism  with  regard  to  the  stranger  to  the 
covenant,  as  exemplified  in  the  prayer  of  King  Solo- 
mon, contrasts  with  the  contrary  sentiment  of  Chris- 
tianity, whose  founder  said:  ''Whosoever  shall  deny 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  ^ 

It  is  apparently  impossible  for  our  Christian  friends 
to  understand  the  Jewish  position  with  regard  to  pros- 
elytizing; and  the  difficulty  they  experience  in  this 
respect  is  due  to  the  narrow  and  illiberal  teachings  of 
their  own  religion. 


IL 


According  to  the  religious  theory  of  Christians, 
there  is  a  Kingdom  of  God,  and  a  Kingdom  of  Satan; 
and  they  believe  that  only  they  themselves  can  be- 
long to  the  Kangdom  of  God,  and  that  all  the  remain- 

*  I  Kings  viii.  41-43.  2  Matt.  x.  23- 


52      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELIST. 

der  of  mankind  are  members  of  the  Kingdom  of  Sa- 
tan and  doomed  to  everlasting  punishment.  And  as 
our  Christian  friends  do  not  agree  among  themselves 
as  to  v^hat  are  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity, so  therefore  do  they  concede  the  possibiHty  of 
salvation  only  to  those  of  themselves  who  profess  a 
certain  form  of  their  religion.  Thus,  the  Roman 
Catholics  believe  that  salvation  can  only  be  obtained 
through  the  profession  of  their  own  particular  faith, 
and  they  do  not  admit  that  there  is  any  salvation  for 
Protestants;  while  the  latter  claim  that  salvation  can 
only  be  gained  through  the  profession  of  their  own 
form  of  Christianity,  and  they  do  not  allow  that  there 
is  any  salvation  for  Roman  Catholics.  The  Protes- 
tants go  even  further  than  this :  for  they  believe  in  the 
doctrine  called  election  oj  grace,  which  teaches  them 
that,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  world,  the  Al- 
mighty selected  certain  individuals  for  salvation,  and 
predestinated  them  to  everlasting  life;  and  that  all  the 
rest  of  mankind,  including  even  many  Protestants 
among  them.  He  foreordained  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment and  death.  Under  this  doctrine  of  election  oj 
grace,  the  Protestants  are  required  to  believe  that  it  is 
not  enough  for  the  salvation  of  a  man  that  he  should  be 
born,  baptized,  and  brought  up  in  the  Protestant 
faith;  but  he  must  also,  through  profession  of  his  be- 
lief in  Jesus,  have  experienced  a  certain  change  of 
heart  and  disposition,  resulting  in  a  reformation  of  his 
manner  of  life,  the  abandonment  of  all  habits  consid- 
ered evil,  and  the  entire  submission  of  his  will  to  what 
is  supposed  to  be  that  of  Jesus.  And  as,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  many  of  those  Protestants  who  deem  themselves 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  53 

included  among  the  elect,  some  of  the  ordinary  social 
customs  of  the  day,  such  as  drinking  wine,  smoking 
tobacco,  dancing,  theatre-going,  etc.,  are  incompat- 
ible with  the  state  of  conversion  to  religion,  it  re- 
sults that,  according  to  their  belief,  all  those  of  their 
own  coreligionists  who  indulge,  even  temperately,  in 
any  of  these  social  habits  are  also  excluded  from  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  are  under  the  power  of  the  Devil, 
no  matter  how  exemplary  in  all  other  respects  their 
lives  may  be. 

Toward  the  end  of  last  winter^  there  appeared  a 
paragraph  in  the  Daily  Witness  of  this  city^  which 
announced  that  the  Rev.  Merton  Smith,  of  Chicago, 
would  relate  the  story  of  his  life  and  conversion  in 
Emmanuel  Church  on  the  following  Sunday  evening; 
and  the  heading  of  this  simple  announcement  was 
curiously  symbolic  of  the  bigotry  and  intolerance  that 
are  the  essential  characteristics  of  Christianity,  and 
are  to  be  found  at  the  heart  of  every  professing  Chris- 
tian. The  heading,  in  the  usual  large  type,  was, 
''  From  the  Power  of  Satan  to  God." 

Being  trained  up  to  take  these  very  narrow  \iews 
of  the  mercy  and  grace  of  the  Almighty,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  our  Christian  friends  should  find 
it  impossible  to  either  beHeve  in  or  understand  the 
broader  teachings  and  more  tolerant  doctrines  of  the 
Jewish  religion.  Because  it  is  with  them  an  article  of 
faith  that  there  is  no  salvation  outside  of  the  pale  of 
Christianity,  they  conclude  that  the  Jews  must  of 
necessity  hold  a  similar  doctrine  with  regard  to  their 

'  This  article  was  published  in  The  Jewish  Times  of  the  21st  De- 
cember, 1900. 
'^  Montreal. 


54      A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

religion;  and  that,  because  the  Jews  do  not  seek  to 
make  converts  to  Judaism,  they  must  be  recreant  to 
their  duty,  and  either  indifferent  about  the  salvation 
of  Gentiles  or  else  selfishly  desirous  of  confining  to 
themselves  the  happiness  of  the  future  Hf e.  And  it  will 
no  doubt  be  novel  and  quite  incredible  to  many  of  our 
Christian  friends  to  be  told  that  the  teaching  of  the  Jew- 
ish religion  is,  that  it  is  easier  for  the  Gentile  to  merit 
salvation  than  it  is  for  the  Jew,  because  God  requires 
more  from  the  latter  than  He  does  from  the  former. 

According  to  Jewish  teaching,  all  men  are  required 
to  observe  what  we  call  the  Noachite  precepts^  because 
they  are  obligatory  on  all  the  sons  of  Noah.  These 
Noachite  precepts  are  seven  in  number.  The  first 
is,  not  to  commit  idolatry;  the  second,  not  to  blas- 
pheme the  name  of  God;  the  third,  not  to  commit 
murder;  the  fourth,  not  to  commit  incest;  the  fifth, 
not  to  steal;  the  sixth,  not  to  pervert  justice;  and 
the  seventh,  not  to  eat  any  part  of  an  animal  while  it 
is  yet  alive.  These  seven  precepts  of  the  sons  of  Noah 
comprise  all  the  commandments  that,  according  to 
Jewish  teaching,  are  obUgatory  upon  non-Israelites; 
and  therefore,  in  Jewish  beHef,  all  Gentiles  who  ab- 
stain from  idolatry,  blasphemy,  murder,  immorality, 
theft,  perversion  of  justice,  and  cruelty,  do  all  that  is 
required  of  them  by  the  Almighty,  and  by  their  ser- 
vice in  observing  these  commandments  render  them- 
selves as  acceptable  to  God  as  the  children  of  Israel 
can  possibly  do  by  their  own  observance  of  all  the 
precepts  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Hence,  it  is  not  through 
either  indifference,  uncharitableness,  or  selfishness 
that  the  Jews  do  not  seek  to  make  converts  to  Juda- 


SOME    QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  55 

ism;  but  because  they  have  never  been  taught,  and  do 
not  believe,  that  the  conversion  of  Gentiles  to  Judaism 
is  at  all  essential  to  their  salvation. 

The  people  of  Israel  believe  that  God  requires  more 
from  them  than  He  does  from  the  other  nations  of  the 
earth,  because  they  entered  into  a  covenant  with  Him 
at  Mount  Sinai  to  perform  all  the  words  of  His  law. 
"And  Moses  went  up  unto  God,  and  the  Eternal 
called  unto  him  from  the  Mount,  saying.  Thus  shalt 
thou  say  to  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  tell  the  children 
of  Israel:  Ye  have  yourselves  seen  what  I  have  done 
unto  the  Egyptians,  and  how  I  bore  you  on  eagles' 
wings,  and  brought  you  unto  Myself.  Now,  therefore, 
if  you  will  truly  obey  My  voice,  and  keep  My  cove- 
nant, then  shall  ye  be  unto  Me  a  pecuHar  treasure 
above  all  nations;  for  all  the  earth  is  Mine.  And  ye 
shall  be  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy 
nation;  these  are  the  words  which  thou  shalt  speak 
unto  the  children  of  Israel.  And  Moses  came,  and 
called  for  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  laid  before 
them  all  these  words  which  the  Eternal  had  commanded 
him.  And  all  the  people  answered  together,  and  said, 
All  that  the  Eternal  hath  spoken  will  we  do;  and  Moses 
returned  the  words  of  the  people  unto  the  Eternal."  ^ 
This  covenant  with  the  Almighty,  thus  entered  into 
by  our  ancestors  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  is  binding 
upon  their  descendants  forever.  ''The  Eternal  our 
God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  Not  with 
our  fathers  did  the  Eternal  make  this  covenant,  but 
with  us,  even  us,  who  are  here  all  of  us  aHve  this  day."  ^ 

Having  entered   into  this  covenant  with   God,  the 

^  Exod.  xix.  3-8.  '  Deut.  v.  2,  3. 


56      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

people  of  Israel  are  therefore  bound  to  keep  the  whole 
of  His  law  and  commandments.  But  such  is  not  the 
case  with  the  rest  of  mankind;  for  the  latter  neither 
entered  into  the  covenant  nor  were  they  called  upon 
to  do  so.  Jewish  opinion  holds  that  the  Law  of 
Moses,  in  its  entirety,  was  made  for  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  not  for  the  whole  world;  that  the  Israelites 
are  obUged  to  observe  it,  but  not  the  rest  of  mankind; 
and  that  if  non-Israelites  observe  the  Law  of  Nature, 
which  is  another  name  for  the  seven  precepts  of  the 
sons  of  Noah,  and  comprises  all  the  moral  rules  of  the 
Mosaic  Code,  they  perform  all  that  God  requires  of 
them,  and,  as  just  mentioned,  render  themselves  by 
this  service  as  acceptable  to  the  Almighty  as  the  Israel- 
ites can  do  by  theirs.  Jews  and  non-Jews  are  equally 
subject  to  the  moral  laws;  but  the  ceremonial  laws  are 
binding  upon  the  Jews  alone. 

We  therefore  find  that,  in  ancient  times,  there  were 
among  the  Israelites  two  kinds  of  proselytes;  the  one, 
called  Proselytes  0}  the  Gate;  and  the  other.  Proselytes 
0}  Justice  or  Righteousness.  The  Proselytes  of  the 
Gate  were  all  those  strangers  living  in  the  land  of 
Israel  who  renounced  idolatry,  and  became  proselytes 
so  far  as  to  observe  the  seven  Noachite  precepts;  and 
no  Gentiles  were  allowed  to  dwell  in  the  land,  unless 
they  became  such  proselytes.  This  was  required  be- 
cause of  the  prohibition  against  idolatry,  which  was 
punished  by  death;  and  in  order  that  the  Israelites 
might  not  learn  the  evil  ways  of  the  strangers,  and 
themselves  become  idolaters.  Naaman,  the  Syrian, 
was  a  Proselyte  of  the  Gate.* 

*  2  Kings  V.  17,  18. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  57 

The  other  kind  of  proselytes,  called  Proselytes  of 
Righteousness  or  Justice^  were  those  strangers  who  vol- 
untarily took  upon  themselves  the  observance  of  the 
whole  Law  of  Moses;  for  although  the  IsraeUtes  did 
not  consider  this  to  be  necessary  for  persons  who  were 
not  of  their  nation,  yet  they  never  refused  any  who 
freely  offered,  but  received  all  who  wanted,  to  profess 
their  religion.  The  Mosaic  Law  provided  for  such 
cases.  For  instance:  ''And  when  a  stranger  sojourn- 
eth  w^ith  thee,  and  will  prepare  the  passover  to  the 
Eternal,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let 
him  come  near  and  prepare  it,  and  he  shall  be  as  one 
that  is  born  in  the  land;  but  no  uncircumcised  person 
shall  eat  thereof."  ^  When,  therefore,  any  strangers 
dwelling  among  the  Israelites  wished  to  become  prose- 
lytes to  Judaism,  they  were  initiated  to  it  by  ablution, 
sacrifice,  and  circumcision,  and  were  thereafter  admit- 
ted to  all  the  rites,  ceremonies,  and  privileges  that  were 
enjoyed  by  the  Israelites  themselves,  with  one  excep- 
tion: and  that  was,  they  were  not  permitted  to  marry 
women  of  Israel.  To  marry  a  daughter  of  Israel  is 
what  is  meant  by  the  expression  ''to  enter  into  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord" ;  and  from  this  some  nations, 
such  as  the  Ammonites  and  the  Moabites,^  were  forever 
excluded;  while  others,  such  as  the  Edomites  and  the 
Egyptians,  were,  in  the  third  generation  after  becom- 
ing proselytes,  not  refused  permission  to  intermarry 
with  women  of  IsraeP;  a  probation  of  this  length  of 
time  quaUfying  them  for  a  connection  with  the  chosen 
people.  The  strictness  and  importance  of  the  law 
against  the  marriages  of  IsraeUtes  with  non-Israelites 

'  Exod.  xii.  48.  '  Deut.  xxiii.  4.  ^  /j^j^  ^ 


58      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO    CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

are  attested  by  the  number  of  generations  that  had  to 
elapse  before  the  descendants  of  those  who  became 
proselytes  were  allowed  to  intermarry  with  Jews;  and 
the  reason  for  the  law  and  its  necessity  have  been  but 
too  fully  and  too  sadly  proved  by  the  fulfilment  of  the 
predictions  of  the  dreadful  calamities  that  would  over- 
whelm the  people  of  Israel  as  a  consequence  of  its  in- 
fringement. Ezra  ^  and  Nehemiah  ^  found  in  the  mar- 
riages of  Jews  with  non-Jews  the  fruitful  cause  of  all 
the  sins  and  consequent  sufferings  of  the  people  of 
Israel ;  and  they  compelled  all  those  Jews  who  had  mar- 
ried strange  wives,  and  even  those  who  had  children 
by  such  wives,  to  put  them  away.  And  it  is  very  note- 
worthy that  it  was  not  even  suggested  that  the  conver- 
sion of  these  non- Jewish  wives  and  their  children  to 
Judaism  could  remedy,  or  furnish  any  palliation  or 
make  any  atonement  for,  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
non-intermarriage  of  which  their  Jewish  husbands  and 
fathers  had  been  guilty. 


III. 


Among  their  other  peculiarities,  our  Christian 
friends  have  a  remarkable  faculty  for  forgetting  that 
the  Almighty  has,  for  His  own  wise  purposes,  sepa- 
rated ^  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  other  nations  of 
the  world,  "to  be  unto  Him  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and 
a  holy  nation"  ^j  so  that,  even  when  they  do  occasion- 
ally remember  this  circumstance,  they  are  unable  to 
deduce  from  it  the  logical  consequence  that,  in  attempt- 

1  Ezra  ix.,  x.     ^  Nehe.  xiii.  23-30.     ^  Levit.  xx.  26.     ^  Exod.  xix.  6. 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  59 

ing  to  convert  the  Jews  to  Christianity,  they  are  not 
only  trying  to  persuade  the  chosen  people  of  God  to 
be  faithless  and  disobedient  to  Him,  but  are  also 
endeavoring  to  break  down  the  separation  that  the 
Almighty  has  decreed,  and  are  setting  their  puny 
efforts  against  the  accomplishment  of  His  declared 
will.  As  an  instance  of  their  peculiarity  in  this  respect, 
I  will  now  make  a  few  extracts  from  a  book  written 
by  a  Protestant  clergyman  who,  with  the  usual  incon- 
sistency and  bUndness  of  his  coreligionists,  has  de- 
voted himself  to  the  vain  task  of  trying  to  induce 
Jews  to  forsake  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  to  wor- 
ship another  than  the  God  who  commanded,  "I  am 
the  Eternal  thy  God;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  Me." ' 

''The  descendants,  then,  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob, 
called  Israel,  and  who  are  most  fitly  termed  Israelites, 
have  been  chosen  or  elected  by  God  for  some  specific 
purpose,  as  the  result  of  the  infinite  wisdom  of  Him 
who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own 
will,  and  who  has  declared, '  This  people  have  I  formed 
for  Myself,  they  shall  show  forth  My  praise.'  ^ 

"These  children  of  Israel  ...  as  a  people  are 
separated  from  all  others  as  God's  own.  '  Ye  shall  be 
holy  unto  Me :  for  I  the  Lord  am  holy,  and  have  sep- 
arated you  from  the  peoples,  that  ye  should  be  Mine.' ' 

''Their  perpetual  separation  is  guaranteed.  'Lo,  it 
is  a  people  that  dwell  alone,  and  shall  not  be  reckoned 
among  the  nations.'  *  They  are  also  to  be  above  all 
other  nations  in  praise  and  honor;  a  chosen,  holy, 
and   peculiar  people.     'For  thou   art   a  holy   people 

1  Exod.  XX  2,  3.     ^Isaiah  xliii.  21.     ^  Levit.  xx.  26.     *  Numb,  xxiii.  9. 


6o      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN    EVANGELISTS 

unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  the  Lord  hath  chosen 
thee  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  Himself,  above  all 
peoples  that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.'  ^  .    .  . 

"We  have  now  sufficiently  traced  the  development 
of  the  nation  of  Israel  from  the  call  of  Abraham, 
through  his  son  Isaac,  and  his  grandson  Jacob,  to  the 
descendants  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  as  heads  of 
tribes;  constituting  an  elect,  redeemed,  separated,  pro- 
tected, preserved  and  honored  people,  with  a  mission 
of  distinguished  service  in  the  interest  of  the  human 
race  and  for  the  glory  of  the  Eternal.  .  .  . 

"Israel's  preservation  as  a  distinct  people  is  guaran- 
teed in  the  simplest,  clearest,  and  strongest  language. 
'Thus  saith  the  Lord,  who  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light 
by  day,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  moon  and  of  the 
stars  for  a  light  by  night,  who  stirreth  up  the  sea  that 
the  waves  thereof  roar,  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  His  name : 
If  these  ordinances  depart  from  before  Me,  saith  the 
Lord,  then  the  seed  of  Israel  also  shall  cease  from 
being  a  nation  before  Me  forever.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord:  If  heaven  above  can  be  measured,  and  the 
foundations  of  the  earth  searched  out  beneath,  then 
will  I  also  cast  off  all  the  seed  of  Israel  for  all  that 
they  have  done,  saith  the  Lord.'  ^  .   .  . 

"Thus,  before  the  original  purpose  of  God  in  the 
blessing  of  all  nations  through  Israel  can  be  realized, 
the  scattered  tribes  of  Israel  must  become  one  united 
people  and  nation  in  the  possession  of  their  ancient 
inheritance.  'Thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  Behold,  I 
will  take  the  children  of  Israel  from  among  the  nations, 
whither  they  be  gone,  and  will  gather  them  on  every 

1  Deut,  xiv.  2.  2  Jere.  xxxi.  35-37. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  6l 

side,  and  bring  them  into  their  own  land:  and  I  will 
make  them  one  nation  in  the  land,  upon  the  mountains 
of  Israel,  and  one  king  shall  be  king  to  them  all :  and 
they  shall  be  no  more  two  nations;  neither  shall  they 
be  divided  into  two  kingdoms  any  more  at  all/  .  .  . 
And  they  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  have  gi\x3n 
unto  Jacob  My  servant,  wherein  your  fathers  dwelt; 
and  they  shall  dwell  therein,  they,  and  their  children, 
and  their  children's  children  forever;  and  David  My 
servant  shall  be  their  prince  forever.  Moreover,  I 
will  make  a  covenant  of  peace  with  them;  it  shall  be 
an  everlasting  covenant  with  them:  and  I  will  place 
them,  and  multiply  them,  and  will  set  My  sanctuary 
in  the  midst  of  them  forevermore.  My  tabernacle 
also  shall  be  with  them;  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  My  people.  And  the  nations  shall 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord  that  sanctify  Israel,  when 
My  sanctuary  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  them  forever- 
more.*  ^ 

*'The  simple  believer  in  the  word  of  the  living  God 
feels  no  surprise  whatever  that  a  nation  originated  and 
developed  under  such  exceptional  and  miraculous  cir- 
cumstances, and  for  so  divine  a  purpose,  should  have 
its  preservation  guaranteed  until  its  mission  of  univer- 
sal blessing  has  been  fully  accomplished.  'Judah 
shall  abide  forever,  and  Jerusalem  from  generation 
to  generation.' ^  'He  hath  remembered  His  covenant 
forever,  the  word  which  He  commanded  to  a  thousand 
generations.'  *  The  national  election  of  Israel  is  uncon- 
ditional, and  the  existence  of  the  nation  guaranteed  to 
the  end  of  time." 

'  Ezek.  xxxvii.  21,  22.     '  Ibid.,  25-28.     *  Joel  iv.  20.     *  Ps.  cv.  8. 


62      A  JEWISH   EEPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

These  extracts  are  taken  from  the  book  called 
^'Israel  My  Glory,  or  Israel's  Mission,  and  Missions 
to  Israel,"  written  by  the  Rev.  John  Wilkinson,  the 
founder  and  director  of  the  Mildmay  Mission  to  the 
Jews;  and  I  quote  them  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
how  impossible  it  is  for  a  Christian  to  be  either  logical 
or  consistent  when  he  comes  to  discuss  matters  of 
religion,  and  particularly  when  he  undertakes  to  teach 
the  chosen  people  of  God  what  their  religion  should 
be.  Here  we  have  an  example  of  a  Christian  clergy- 
man who  states  that  it  has  been  his  life-work  to  study 
the  Word  of  God  with  a  special  desire  to  understand 
His  purpose  concerning  Israel;  who  expresses  his 
belief  that  the  Israelites  have  been  chosen  by  God  for 
a  specific  purpose — for  the  blessing  of  the  human 
race — and  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  divine 
purpose  have  been  separated  by  the  Almighty  from 
all  other  nations,  to  be  unto  Him  a  pecuHar  people; 
who  admits  that  their  separation,  and  their  preserva- 
tion as  a  distinct  people,  are  guaranteed  by  the  Al- 
mighty to  the  end  of  time ;  and  yet  this  same  Christian 
clergyman,  with  the  moral  obliquity  and  the  intel- 
lectual blindness  that  are  so  characteristic  of  his  class, 
fails  to  see  that,  in  endeavoring  to  procure  the  con- 
version of  Jews  to  Christianity,  he  is  trying  to  break 
down  the  separation  ordained  by  God,  and  is  opposing 
His  will,  and  trying  to  teach  His  people  to  disobey 
Him.  Fortunate  it  is  for  mankind  that  the  people 
of  Israel  have  a  clearer  conception  than  have  their 
would-be  teachers,  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  them 
by  the  covenant  made  in  Horeb.  Unto  them  it  has 
been  shown,  that  they  may  know  '*That    the  Eternal 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  63 

is  the  God  in  the  heavens  above,  and  upon  the  earth 
beneath:  there  is  none  else."* 

The  Jewish  religion  differs  from  all  others  that  the 
world  has  known,  for  it  comes  to  us  as  a  direct  reve- 
lation from  the  Almighty;  while  all  other  religions 
have  been,  and  are,  but  the  inventions  of  men.  The 
Jewish  religion,  emanating  from  God,  does  not  require 
from  the  children  of  Israel  any  argument  or  preaching, 
nor  any  proselytizing  efforts,  to  make  its  truth  known 
to  the  remainder  of  mankind;  but  the  followers  of  all 
other  religions  have  been  taught,  as  a  primary  duty, 
to  use  all  kinds  of  human  devices,  including  force  and 
persecution,  and  fire  and  the  sword,  to  procure  the 
spread  of  their  particular  tenets  among  other  people. 
There  is  not  one  word  to  be  found  in  the  law  which 
Moses  commanded  to  the  children  of  Israel  that  directs 
them  to  become  missionaries  for  the  conversion  of 
Gentiles  to  Judaism;  but  there  are  often-repeated  in- 
junctions to  them  to  be  true  to  their  God,  and  to  fear 
Him,  and  to  keep  His  commandments.  This  is  the 
kind  of  missionary  that  the  Jews  are  required  to  be. 

"See,  I  have  taught  you  statutes  and  ordinances, 
just  as  the  Eternal  my  God  commanded  me.  .  .  . 
Keep  therefore  and  do  them;  for  this  is  your  wisdom 
and  your  understanding  before  the  eyes  of  the  nations, 
that  shall  hear  all  these  statutes,  and  they  will  say, 
Nothing  but  a  wise  and  understanding  people  is  this 
great  nation."^  This  is  the  kind  of  missionary  work 
that  has  been  given  to  the  children  of  Israel  to  do. 

''Only  take  heed  to  thyself,  and  guard  thy  soul  dili- 
gently, that  thou  do  not  forget  the  things  which  thy 

'  Deut.  iv.  39.  '  Deut.  iv.  5,  6. 


64      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

eyes  have  seen,  and  that  they  depart  not  from  thy  heart 
all  the  days  of  thy  life;  but  thou  shalt  make  them 
known  unto  thy  sons,  and  unto  thy  sons'  sons.  The 
day  that  thou  stoodest  before  the  Eternal  thy  God  at 
Horeb,  when  the  Eternal  said  unto  me.  Assemble  for 
Me  the  people,  and  I  will  cause  them  to  hear  My 
words,  which  they  shall  learn,  to  fear  Me  all  the  days 
that  they  shall  live  upon  the  earth,  and  which  they 
shall  teach  their  children."  ^  This  is  the  mission 
that  has  been  given  to  the  children  of  Israel. 

"And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Eternal  thy  God 
require  of  thee,  but  to  fear  the  Eternal  thy  God,  to 
walk  in  all  His  ways,  and  to  love  Him,  and  to  serve 
the  Eternal  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul.  To  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Eternal,  and 
His  statutes,  which  I  command  thee  this  day  for  thy 
own  good.  Behold,  to  the  Eternal  thy  God  belong 
the  heavens,  and  the  heavens  of  heavens,  and  the  earth 
with  all  that  is  thereon.^  .  .  .  For  the  Eternal 
your  God  is  the  God  of  gods,  and  the  Lord  of  lords, 
the  great,  the  mighty,  and  the  terrible  God,  who  hath 
no  regard  to  persons,  and  taketh  no  bribes;  who 
executeth  justice  for  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,  and 
loveth  the  stranger,  to  give  him  food  and  raiment. 
Love  ye  then  the  stranger ;  for  you  have  been  strangers 
in  the  land  of  Egypt."  ^  This  is  the  kind  of  missionary 
work  that  the  Jews  are  required  to  do. 

"After  the  Eternal  your  God  shall  ye  walk,  and  Him 
shall  ye  fear,  and  His  commandments  shall  ye  keep,  and 
His  voice  shall  ye  obey,  and  Him  shall  ye  serve,  and 
unto   Him   shall   ye  cleave."*     This   is   the   kind   of 

'  Deut.  iV.  Q,  lo.     '  Ibid.,  x.  12-14.     '  Ibid.,  17-19      *  Ibid.,  xiii  5 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  65 

missionary  work  that  the  Jews  are  commanded  to  do; 
and  they  have  only  to  do  it,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass 
''that  ten  men  out  of  all  the  languages  of  the  nations 
shall  take  hold — yea,  they  shall  take  hold  of  the  skirt 
of  him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying.  Let  us  go  with  you,  for 
we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you."  * 


IV. 


The  next  questions  were:  "Who  is  the  Son  spoken 
of  in  the  2d  Psalm?  If  the  Messiah  be  David's  Son, 
how  is  He  his  Lord  (Psalm  ex.)  ?" 

We  will  find  in  these  questions  further  instances  of 
the  peculiar  way  in  which  Christians  accommodate  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  to  their  own  religious  views.  They 
ignore  the  hundreds  of  positive  declarations  with 
which  the  Old  Testament  abounds,  in  which  the 
Eternal  and  His  prophets  have  proclaimed  His  Unity, 
and  have  declared  in  the  plainest  of  language  and  the 
most  unequivocal  of  words  that  He  is  the  One  Eternal 
Being,  the  First  and  the  Last — that  He  is  our  God, 
our  Lord,  our  Redeemer,  and  our  Saviour,  and  that 
besides  Him  there  is  no  God,  no  Lord,  no  Redeemer, 
and  no  Saviour;  but,  whenever  they  can  find  in  the 
Old  Testament  a  verse,  a  word,  or  an  expression  that 
can  by  any  means  be  twisted  into  the  semblance  of 
a  confirmation  of  their  theory  of  a  plurality  of  Gods, 
they  take  hold  of  every  such  text,  and  quote  it  as  a 
proof  of  the  truth  of  their  religion,  totally  regardless 
of  every  other  construction  of  which  it  may  with  better 

5  '  Zech  xiii  23 


66      A   JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

reason  be  susceptible,  and  without  making  any  attempt 
to  reconcile  it  with  the  hundreds  of  positive  assertions 
of  the  Unity  of  God. 

Christians  apply  the  2d  Psalm  to  Jesus:  and  we 
read  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  Apostles  "lifted 
up  their  voice  to  God  with  one  accord,  and  said,  Lord, 
Thou  art  God.  .  .  .  Who  by  the  mouth  of  Thy 
servant  David  hast  said.  Why  did  the  heathen  rage, 
and  the  people  imagine  vain  things?  The  kings  of 
the  earth  stood  up,  and  the  rulers  were  gathered  to- 
gether against  the  Lord,  and  against  His  Christ.  For 
of  a  truth  against  Thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  Thou 
hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with 
the  Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel  were  gathered 
together.  For  to  do  whatsoever  Thy  hand  and  Thy 
counsel  determined  before  to  be  done."  ^  Here  we 
have  the  Apostles  represented  as  praying  to  God,  and 
referring  in  their  prayer  to  the  first  two  verses  of  the 
Psalm  as  being  a  prophecy  by  King  David  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  Jesus. 

But  King  David  was  not,  and  never  professed  to  be, 
a  prophet.  The  prophets  of  his  time  were  Samuel, 
Nathan,  and  Gad;  and  it  was  only  through  one  or  the 
other  of  these  that  God  spoke  to  David.  King  Da\id 
was  no  more  of  a  prophet  than  was  King  Solomon. 
Nor  can  it  be  to  Jesus  that  the  Psalm  refers,  because 
'Uhe  nations ^^^  as  it  is  in  the  original,  did  not  rage  against 
him;  they  knew  nothing  about  him.  The  kings  of 
the  earth  did  not  raise  themselves  up  against  him;  for 
they,  also,  were  not  even  aware  of  his  existence.  Nei- 
ther the  nations  nor  the  kings  of  the  earth  had  any 

*  Acts  iv.  24-28. 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  67 

hand  in  his  alleged  crucifixion;  nor  did  they  know 
anything  about  it.  If  Jesus  were  crucified,  it  was 
done  by  a  few  Roman  soldiers.  Nor  did  those  persons 
who  were  concerned  in  his  crucifixion  meditate  a  vain 
thing,  or  form  vain  designs,  since,  according  to  the 
New  Testament,  they  accompHshed  their  cruel  pur- 
pose. Nor  did  God  set  Jesus  as  king  upon  His  holy 
mount  of  Zion,  nor  give  him  nations  for  his  inheritance, 
nor  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  land  for  his  possession. 
It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  it  cannot  be  to  Jesus, 
about  whom  David  knew  nothing,  that  the  2d  Psalm 
refers,  and  it  is  just  as  evident  that  in  it  King  David 
was  speaking  about  himself. 

Apply  the  Psalm  to  David  himself,  and  every  part 
of  it  is  confirmed  by  history.  For  against  King  David 
did  nations  rage,  and  his  enemies  form  vain  designs. 
Against  him  did  kings  raise  themselves  up,  and  rulers 
take  counsel  together.  Repeatedly  did  the  kings  of 
the  surrounding  nations,  and  the  nobles  of  Israel, 
assemble  against  him.  For  years  had  he  to  struggle 
against  the  son  of  Saul  and  his  adherents,  and  against 
the  neighboring  kings  combined  against  him;  and 
over  all  his  enemies  did  he  triumph.  The  things  they 
meditated  against  him  were  indeed  vain.  David  did 
God  appoint  as  king  upon  His  holy  mount  of  Zion; 
and  to  him  did  God  give  nations  for  an  inheritance, 
and  for  his  possession  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  land, 
that  is,  the  countries  adjacent  to  Palestine,  which 
formed  part  of  the  Promised  Land,  and  were  indeed 
obliged  to  submit  to  him. 

My  correspondent  asks.  Who  is  the  "^ow"  spoken 
of  in  the  Psalm?  and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why 


68      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

he  should  think  it  necessary  to  ask  such  a  question. 
The  writer  of  the  Psalm  announces,  "The  Eternal 
hath  said  unto  we,  My  son  art  thou":  and  therefore  it 
is  the  writer  of  the  Psalm  who  is  the  son  spoken  of  in 
it.  It  certainly  was  not  Jesus  who  is  here  spoken  of; 
for  Jesus  was  not  the  writer  of  the  Psalm,  which  was 
written  more  than  i,ooo  years  before  his  birth.  It  is 
of  himself  that  King  David,  the  writer  of  the  Psalm, 
announces,  "The  Eternal  hath  said  unto  me^  My  son 
art  thou."  The  children  of  Israel  were  called  by  God, 
"My  son,"  "My  first-born,"  and  to  David,  as  king  and 
representative  of  the  people  of  Israel,  was  the  appella- 
tion of  My  son  most  appropriately  applied.  "And 
thou  shalt  say  unto  Pharaoh,  Thus  hath  said  the 
Eternal,  My  son,  My  first-born  is  Israel.  And  I  said 
unto  thee,  Let  My  son  go,  that  he  may  serve  Me;  and 
thou  refusest  to  let  him  go;  so,  behold,  I  will  slay  thy 
son,  thy  first-born."  *  The  Israelites  were  also  called 
the  children  of  God.  "Ye  are  the  children  of  the 
Eternal  your  God."^ 

"I  have  found  David  My  servant;  with  My  holy  oil 
have  I  anointed  him.  ...  He  will  call  unto  Me, 
Thou  art  my  Father,  my  God,  and  the  Rock  of  my 
Salvation.  Also  I  will  appoint  him  My  first-born,  the 
highest  among  the  kings  of  the  earth."  ^ 

Solomon,  also,  was  called  by  God,  "My  son."  "He 
it  is  who  shall  build  a  house  unto  My  name;  and  he 
shall  be  My  son,  and  I  will  be  his  father;  and  I  will 
establish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  over  Israel  for 
ever."*     "And  He  hath  said  unto  me,  Solomon  thy 

*  Exod   iv.  22,  23.         '  Deut.  xiv.  i.         ^  Ps.  Ixxxix.  21,  27,  28. 
*  I  Chron.  xxii.  10. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  69 

son,  he  shall  build  My  house  and  My  courts;  for  I 
have  chosen  him  to  be  My  son,  and  I  will  be  his 
Father." ' 

After  King  David  had  expressed  himself,  ''The 
Eternal  hath  said  unto  me,  thou  art  My  son,"  his  sub- 
sequent exclamation  of  "Kiss  the  son"  was  natural 
enough ;  for  to  kiss,  in  the  East,  was  an  act  of  homage, 
and  the  passage  is  often  rendered,  ''Do  homage  to  the 
son."  The  giving  of  a  kiss  was  also  considered  a 
sign  of  appointing  to  royalty,  as  in  the  case  of  Samuel 
and  Saul.  "And  Samuel  took  a  flask  of  oil,  and 
poured  it  upon  his  head,  and  kissed  him,  and  said. 
Behold,  it  is  because  the  Eternal  hath  anointed  thee 
over  His  inheritance  as  chief."  ^ 

"If  the  Messiah  be  David's  son,  how  is  He  his 
Lord?" 

A  question  similar  to  this  is  said  to  have  been  asked 
by  Jesus.  We  read  in  the  New  Testament:  "While 
the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Jesus  asked 
them,  saying.  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Whose  son 
is  he?  They  say  unto  him,  The  son  of  David.  He 
saith  unto  them.  How  then  doth  David  in  spirit  call 
him  Lord,  saying.  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit 
thou  on  My  right  hand,  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy 
footstool?  If  David  then  call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his 
son?  And  no  man  was  able  to  answer  him  a  word, 
neither  durst  any  man,  from  that  day  forth,  ask  him 
any  more  questions."  ^  The  last  sentence  shows  us 
that  the  compilers  of  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  Matthew 
had  evidently  never  put  any  of  these  questions,  which 
they  appear  to  have  considered  unanswerable,   to  a 

'  I  Chron.  xxviii.  6.         '^  i  Sam.  x.  i.         ^  Matt.  xxii.  41-46. 


70      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

Jew;  otherwise  they  would  have  found  out  that  they 
were  easily  enough  answered,  and  that  there  was 
nothing  in  them  calculated  to  deter  the  Jews  from 
asking  Jesus  further  questions. 

Christian  theologians  attach  a  great  deal  of  impor- 
tance to  the  iioth  Psalm.  They  claim  that  the  title 
of  the  Psalm  indicates  that  it  is  one  of  which  King 
David  was  the  author;  that  it  refers  to  the  Messiah; 
and  that  since,  in  this  Psalm,  David  honored  the 
Messiah,  who  was  to  be  his  descendant,  with  the 
appellation  of  *'My  Lord,"  he  must  have  considered 
him  as  a  part  of  and  One  with  God.  They  further 
claim  that  in  this  Psalm  it  is  prophesied  of  the  exalt- 
ed personage  whom  David  called  ''My  Lord"  that 
he  was  to  be  a  ruler  and  "a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Malkizedek";  and  that,  since  David  was  a 
ruler  but  not  a  priest,  there  is  therefore  here  implied 
a  change  in  the  order  of  the  priesthood;  and  that  the 
dignity  and  privilege  of  a  High  Priest  are  to  be  united 
with  those  of  a  King  in  the  Divine  person  who  is  the 
subject  of  the  Psalm,  and  who,  in  the  opinion  of  our 
Christian  friends,  cannot  be  any  other  than  Jesus, 
whom  they  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Mes- 
siah, as  well  as  David's  Son  and  Lord. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  titles  to  the  Psalms  are 
not  decisive  as  to  authorship.  They  are  of  a  later  date 
than  the  Psalms  themselves:  and  although  they  may 
in  some  cases  embody  reliable  information,  yet  their 
value  has  been  variously  estimated.  Several  of  the 
Psalms  ascribed  to  David  are  supposed,  from  linguistic 
and  internal  evidence,  not  to  have  been  composed  by 
him;  others,  again,  are  clearly  of  a  date  subsequent  to 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  71 

the  Babylonian  Captivity.  Biblical  scholars  therefore 
differ  as  to  the  number  of  Davidic  Psalms.  Delitzsch 
considers  that  44  out  of  the  73  ascribed  to  David  are 
by  him ;  Ewald  assigns  1 1  complete  Psalms,  and  some 
fragments  of  others,  to  David;  Hitzig  makes  him  the 
author  of  14;  Schulz  regards  17  as  Davidic,  and  17 
others  as  probably  by  David ;  while  Cheyne  and  others 
deny  that  any  of  the  Psalms  are  by  David.  The  con- 
clusion come  to  by  these  last  is  probably  not  justifiable ; 
but  there  is  room  for  so  much  doubt  as  to  the  value 
of  any  of  the  titles  to  the  Psalms,  as  indications  of 
their  authorship,  that  the  fact  of  Christian  theologians 
depending  upon  the  correctness  of  their  interpretation 
of  the  title  to  the  iioth  Psalm,  as  furnishing  one  of 
the  most  important  proofs  they  can  adduce  from  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  of  the  truth  of  their  theory  of  a 
plurality  of  Gods,  is  an  evidence  and  an  admission  of 
the  utter  weakness  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
their  religion. 


The  Hebrew  title  to  the  iioth  Psalm  is,  in  the  case 
of  other  Psalms,  translated  '*A  Psalm  of  David,"  that 
is,  a  Psalm  belonging  to  him  as  author ;  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  this  rendering  must  be  necessarily  correct 
in  the  case  of  the  Psalm  now  in  question,  for  the  He- 
brew title  is  equally  susceptible  of  the  version,  "A 
Psalm  to  David"  or  ''A  Psalm  for  (i.e.,  concerning) 
David."  The  headings  of  other  Psalms,  where  the 
same  Hebrew  preposition  is  used,  are  rendered  in  this 


72      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

way:  thus,  the  title  of  the  72d  Psalm  is  translated 
"A  Psalm  jor  {i.e.,  concerning)  Solomon";  that  of  the 
127th  Psalm,  ''A  Song  of  the  degrees  jor  Solomon"; 
that  of  the  92d  Psalm,  ''A  Psalm  or  Song  jor  the 
Sabbath  Day";  and  the  titles  of  the  47th,  48th,  49th, 
and  other  Psalms  are  rendered,  "A  psalm  jor  the  sons 
of  Korach."  So  far  as  the  grammatical  construction 
of  the  Hebrew  title  is  concerned,  it  may  mean  either 
"A  Psalm  of  David"  or  ''A  Psalm  to,  or  jor,  David." 
The  subject-matter  of  the  Psalm  must  be  taken  into 
consideration  in  order  to  decide  the  question  whether 
it  be  "A  Psalm  oj  David"  or  ''A  Psalm  to,  or  jor, 
David";  and  we  will  see  that  the  iioth  Psalm  is  ob- 
viously not  a  composition  of  King  David,  but  that  it 
was  composed  by  some  other  person,  as  an  address  to 
him,  probably  on  the  occasion  of  the  capture  of  Rabbah, 
the  royal  city  of  the  Ammonites. 

The  Psalm  begins  with  the  words  "The  Eternal 
said  to  my  lord  (Adonee).^^  The  expression  A  donee, 
'*my  lord,"  or  ''my  master,"  is  of  very  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  nowhere  is  it 
applied  to  the  Almighty.  It  is  applied  to  Abraham 
by  the  children  of  Heth.  "Hear  us,  my  lord  (A donee) ; 
a  prince  of  God  thou  art  among  us."^  It  is  applied 
to  Abraham  by  Ephron  the  Hittite.  "Nay,  my  lord 
{A donee),  hear  me;  the  field  I  give  to  thee,  and  the 
cave  that  is  therein,  I  give  it  to  thee."^  "My  lord 
(Adonee),  hearken  unto  me;  a  piece  of  land  worth 
400  shekels  of  silver,  what  is  that  between  me  and 
thee?"^  It  is  applied  to  Abraham  by  his  servant, 
"And  he  said,   O   Eternal,   the   God   of   my  master 

*  Gen.  xxiii.  6.  '  Ibid.,  — .  ii.  ^  Ibid.  — .  15. 


SOME    QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  73 

(Adonee)  Abraham,  I  pray  Thee,  send  me  good  speed 
this  day,  and  show  kindness  unto  my  master  (Adonee) 
Abraham."^  "And  he  said,  Blessed  be  the  Eternal, 
the  God  of  my  master  (Adonee)  Abraham,  who  hath 
not  withdrawn  His  mercy  and  His  truth  from  my 
master  (Adonee) ;  I  being  on  the  way,  which  the  Eternal 
hath  led  me,  to  the  house  of  the  brethren  of  my  master 
(Adonee) y^  "And  I  came  this  day  unto  the  well, 
and  said,  O  Eternal,  the  God  of  my  master  (Adonee) 
Abraham,  if  Thou  wouldst  but  prosper  my  way  on 
which  I  am  going." ^  "And  I  bowed  down  my  head 
and  prostrated  myself  before  the  Eternal,  and  blessed 
the  Eternal  God  of  my  master  (Adonee)  Abraham, 
who  had  led  me  in  the  right  way  to  take  the  daughter 
of  the  brother  of  my  master  (Adonee)  for  his  son."  ^ 

The  expression,  Adonee,  my  lord,  is  applied  to  Abra- 
ham's servant  by  Rebekah.  "And  she  said.  Drink, 
my  lord  (Adonee)  \  and  she  hastened,  and  let  down 
her  pitcher  upon  her  hand,  and  gave  him  to  drink." " 
It  is  applied  to  Laban  by  Rachel.  "And  she  said  to 
her  father.  Let  it  not  displease  my  lord  (Adonee),  that 
I  cannot  rise  up  before  thee." '  It  is  applied  to  Esau 
by  Jacob,  when  the  latter  was  returning  to  the  land  of 
Canaan.  "And  he  commanded  them,  saying.  Thus 
shall  ye  speak  unto  my  lord  (Adonee),  to  Esau." ' 
"And  I  send  now  to  tell  my  lord  (Adonee),  that  I  may 
find  grace  in  thy  eyes."  '  "And  he  said.  What  mean- 
est thou  by  all  this  drove  which  I  met  ?  And  he  said, 
To  find  grace  in  the  eyes  of  my  lord  (Adonee).'*^ '    It 


*  Gen.  xxiv.  12. 

^  Ibid.,  —.  27. 

» Ibid., 

,  xxiv.  42. 

*  Ibid.,  — .  48. 

^  Ibid.,  — .  18. 

« Ibid., 

xxxi.  35. 

■"  Ibid.,  xxxii.  4. 

« Ibid.,  —.  5. 

« im., 

,  xxxiii.  8. 

74      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

is  applied  by  Joseph  to  Potiphar.  **But  he  refused, 
and  said  unto  his  master's  wife,  Behold,  my  master 
(Adonee)  troubleth  himself  not  about  what  is  with 
me  in  the  house."  ^ 

In  the  recital  of  the  interviews  between  Joseph  and 
his  brethren,  when  the  latter  went  down  to  Egypt  to 
buy  food,  we  find  the  word  Adonee,  *'my  lord,"  applied 
both  to  Joseph  and  his  steward. 

"And  they  said  unto  him,  Nay,  my  lord  (A donee) ^ 
thy  servants  are  only  come  to  buy  food."  ^  "And  they 
came  near  to  the  man  who  was  appointed  over  Jo- 
seph's house.  .  .  .  And  said.  Pardon,  my  lord  (Ado- 
nee), we  came  down  at  the  first  time  to  buy  food."  ^ 
"Is  not  this  out  of  which  my  lord  (Adonee)  drinketh, 
and  whereby  indeed  he  divineth?"  "And  they  said 
unto  him.  Wherefore  will  my  lord  (Adonee)  speak 
these  words?"  "With  whomsoever  of  thy  servants 
it  be  found,  let  him  die;  and  we  also  will  be  bondmen 
unto  my  lord  (Adonee).''  "And  Judah  said,  What 
shall  we  say  unto  my  lord  (Adonee)?''  "God  hath 
found  out  the  iniquity  of  thy  servants ;  Behold,  we  are 
servants  unto  my  lord  (Adonee),  both  we,  as  also  he 
with  whom  the  cup  was  found."  "Then  Judah  came 
near  unto  him,  and  said.  Pardon,  my  lord  (Adonee), 
let  thy  servant,  I  pray  thee,  speak  a  word  in  the  ears 
of  my  lord  (Adonee),"  "My  lord  (Adonee)  asked  his 
servants.  Have  ye  a  father,  or  a  brother?  And  we 
said  unto  my  lord  (Adonee)."  "And  it  came  to  pass 
when  we  came  up  to  thy  servant  my  father,  we  told 
him  the  words  of  my  lord  (Adonee)."  "Now  there- 
fore, I  pray  thee,  let  thy  servant  abide  instead  of  the 

'  Gen.  xxxix.  8.  "^  Ibid.,  xlii.  lo.         ^  Ibid.,  xliii.  20. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  75 

lad  as  bondman  to  my  lord  (Adonee);  and  let  the  lad 
go  up  with  his  brothers."  ^ 

The  expression  Adonee^  ''my  lord,"  was  also  applied 
to  Moses.  When  Eldad  and  Medad  prophesie-d  in  the 
camp,  Joshua  said,  ''My  lord  {Adonee)  Moses,  forbid 
them."  *  When  Miriam  was  smitten  with  leprosy, 
Aaron  said  to  Moses,  "Alas,  my  lord  {Adonee),  do  not, 
I  beseech  thee,  account  to  us  as  sin  that  wherein  we 
have  done  foolishly,  and  wherein  we  have  sinned." 
"And  Moses  cried  unto  the  Eternal,  saying,  O  God! 
do  Thou  heal  her,  I  beseech  Thee." ' 

"And  the  children  of  Gad  and  the  children  of  Reu- 
ben said  unto  Moses,  as  foUoweth,  thy  servants  will 
do  as  my  lord  {Adonee)  doth  command.  Our  little 
ones,  our  wives,  our  flocks,  and  all  our  cattle  shall 
remain  in  the  cities  of  Gilead;  but  thy  servants  will 
pass  over,  every  one  that  is  armed  for  the  army,  be- 
fore the  Eternal  to  battle,  as  my  lord  {Adonee)  speak- 
eth."^ 

"And  there  came  near  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers  of 
the  family  of  the  children  of  Gilead,  .  .  .  and 
they  spoke  before  Moses.  .  .  .  And  they  said. 
The  Eternal  hath  commanded  my  lord  {Adonee)  to 
give  the  land  for  an  inheritance  by  lot  to  the  children 
of  Israel:  and  my  lord  {Adonee)  was  commanded  by 
the  Eternal  to  give  the  inheritance  of  Zelophchad 
our  brother  unto  his  daughters."  ' 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  hundreds  of  instances  in 
which  the  expression  Adonee  is  used  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible;    and  I  quote  them  for  the  purpose  of  showing 

'  Gen.  xliv,  5,  7,  9,  i6,  18,  19,  20,  24,  33.  "^  Numb.  xi.  28. 

'  Ibid.,  xii.  II,  13.         *  Ihid.y  xxxii.  25-27.        *  Ibid.  ,xxxvi.  i,  2. 


76      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

how  common  an  expression  it  was,  and  how  it  was 
applied  to  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  by  any 
one  who  was  addressing  a  person  of  superior  age,  rank, 
or  influence.  It  was  simply  a  title  of  courtesy  or  of 
honor;  and  it  no  more  indicated  that  the  person  to 
whom  it  was  applied  was  a  part  of  and  One  with  God 
than  does  the  expression  ''my  lord,"  as  applied  now- 
adays to  a  nobleman,  a  judge,  or  a  bishop,  mean  that 
the  person  so  addressed  or  spoken  of  is  a  part  of  and 
One  with  the  Almighty.  And  yet  such  is  the  material 
out  of  which  the  fabric  of  Christianity  is  constructed; 
and  such  are  the  reasons  and  arguments  with  which 
our  Christian  friends  would  seek  to  induce  the  Jews 
to  disobey  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  to  disbelieve 
the  hundreds  of  plain,  straightforward  declarations  of 
His  Unity!  Such,  indeed  are  the  flimsy  reasons  and 
arguments  that  Christian  theologians  consider  so  un- 
answerable that  they  have  put  on  record  in  the  New 
Testament,  "And  no  man  was  able  to  answer  him  a 
word,  neither  durst  any  man  from  that  day  forth  ask 
him  any  more  questions"!!^ 

The  term  Adonee,  "my  lord,"  was  applied  by  David 
to  King  Saul  on  the  two  occasions  on  which  he  sur- 
prised him  while  asleep  and  spared  his  life.  When 
David  had  cut  off  the  corner  of  Saul's  robe,  and  his 
men  would  have  persuaded  him  to  kill  Saul,  David 
said  to  them,  "Far  be  it  from  me  for  the  sake  of  the 
Eternal  that  I  should  do  this  thing  unto  my  master 
(Adonee) y  the  anointed  (Masheach)  of  the  Eternal, 
to  stretch  forth  my  hand  against  him;  because  he  is 
the   anointed   (Masheach)   of  the   Eternal."     "David 

*  Matt.  xxii.  46. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  77 

also  arose  afterward,  and  went  forth  out  of  the  cave, 
and  called  after  Saul,  saying,  My  lord  (Adonee),  the 
King!  .  .  .  And  David  said  to  Saul,  .  .  .  Behold, 
this  day  thy  eyes  have  seen  how  that  the  Eternal 
had  delivered  thee  to-day  into  my  hand  in  the  cave, 
and  some  one  said  that  I  should  kill  thee;  but 
my  soul  felt  compassion  for  thee;  and  I  said,  I  will  not 
stretch  forth  my  hand  against  my  lord  (Adonee);  be- 
cause he  is  the  anointed  (Masheach)  of  the  Eternal."  * 
Here  we  have  David  calling  Saul  his  lord  and  the 
Masheach,  that  is,  the  Messiah  or  anointed,  of  the 
Almighty;  and  if  the  circumstance  that  David  is  sup- 
posed, in  the  iioth  Psalm,  to  call  some  person  his 
lord,  can  be  held,  according  to  the  Christian  argument, 
to  prove  that  person  to  be  a  part  of  and  One  with  God, 
then  must  it  with  stronger  reason  follow  that  King 
Saul,  to  whom  there  is  no  doubt  that  David  did  apply 
the  titles  of  "my  lord,"  and  the  "Messiah  of  the  Eter- 
nal," must  also  be  a  part  of  and  one  with  God.  And 
assuming,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  iioth 
Psalm  was  written  by  David,  then  King  Saul  must 
have  been  the  Adonee  of  the  Psalm,  for  he  was  the 
only  person  in  all  Israel  whom  David  acknowledged 
as  his  lord  and  master.  But  since  Saul  had  been 
rejected  by  God,  and  is  manifestly  not  the  subject  of 
the  psalm,  therefore  it  could  not  have  been  written 
by  David. 

The  Christian  interpretation  and  application  of  the 
Iioth  Psalm  are  also  irreconcilable  with  what   are, 
according    to  the   Old  Testament    narrative,   the  un- 
doubted  prayers    and   utterances    of    David.     "Then 
'  I  Sam.  xxiv.  7,  9-1 1. 


78      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

went  King  David  in,  and  sat  down  before  the  Eternal, 
and  he  said,  .  .  .  Therefore  art  Thou  great,  O 
Eternal  God;  for  there  is  none  like  Thee  and  there  is 
no  God  beside  Thee,  in  accordance  with  all  that  we  have 
heard  with  our  ears."  ^ 

''And  David  spoke  unto  the  Eternal  the  words  of 
this  song,  .  .  .  and  he  said.  Eternal,  my  Rock, 
my  Fortress,  and  my  deliverer;  God,  my  Rock,  in 
whom  I  trust;  my  Shield,  and  the  horn  of  my  salvation, 
my  high  tower,  and  my  Refuge,  my  Saviour!  from 
violence  dost  Thou  save  me!  .  .  .  For  who  is  Gody 
save  the  Eternal?  And  who  is  a  Rock,  save  our  God?^^  ^ 


VI. 


"  Then  arose  King  David  upon  his  feet,  and  said. 
Hear  me,  my  brethren  and  my  people!  .  .  .  And 
now  before  the  eyes  of  all  Israel,  the  congregation  of 
the  Eternal,  and  in  the  hearing  of  our  God  (I  admon- 
ish you),  observe  and  seek  for  all  the  commandments 
of  the  Eternal  your  God:  in  order  that  ye  may  keep 
possession  of  this  good  land,  and  leave  it  for  an  inheri- 
tance unto  your  children  after  you  forever.  And  thou, 
Solomon  my  son,  know  thou  the  God  of  thy  father, 
and  serve  Him  with  an  entire  heart  and  with  a  willing 
soul;  for  all  hearts  doth  the  Eternal  search,  and 
every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  doth  He  understand : 
if  thou  seek  Him,  He  will  let  Himself  be  found  by 
thee;  but  if  thou  forsake  Him,  He  will  cast  thee  ojBE 
forever.^' ' 

*  2  Sam.  vii.  i8,  22.     '  Ihid.,  xxii.  i,  2,  32.     '  i  Chron.  xxviii.  2, 8, 9. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  79 

"And  David  blessed  the  Eternal  before  the  eyes  of  all 
the  congregation;  and  David  said,  Blessed  be  Thou, 
O  Eternal,  the  God  of  Israel  our  father,  from  ever- 
lasting even  unto  everlasting.  Thine,  O  Eternal, 
are  the  greatness,  and  the  might,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  victory,  and  the  majesty,  yea,  all  that  is  in  the 
heavens  and  on  the  earth:  Thine,  O  Eternal,  is  the 
kingdom,  and  Thou  art  exalted  as  the  head  above  all. 
And  riches  and  honor  come  from  Thee,  and  Thou 
rulest  over  all;  and  in  Thy  hand  are  power  and  might; 
and  it  is  in  Thy  hand  to  make  great,  and  to  give  strength 
to  all.^  .  .  .  O  Eternal,  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  of  Israel,  our  fathers,  preserve  this  forever  as 
the  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart  of  Thy 
people,  and  direct  their  heart  firmly  unto  Thee.  And 
unto  Solomon  my  son  do  Thou  give  an  undivided 
heart,  to  keep  Thy  commandments,  Thy  testimonies, 
and  Thy  statutes,  and  to  do  all,  and  to  build  the  palace 
for  which  I  have  made  preparation.  And  David  said 
to  all  the  assembly.  Bless  now  the  Eternal  your  God. 
And  all  the  assembly  blessed  the  Eternal,  the  God  of 
their  fathers,  and  bent  down  their  heads,  and  pros- 
trated themselves  to  the  Eternal,  and  to  the  king."  ^ 

''And  when  the  days  of  David  drew  near  that  he 
should  die,  he  charged  Solomon  his  son,  saying,  I  am 
going  the  way  of  all  the  earth;  but  be  thou  strong, 
and  become  a  man;  And  keep  the  charge  of  the  Eternal 
thy  God,  to  walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes. 
His  commandments,  and  His  ordinances,  and  His  tes- 
timonies, as  it  is  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses ;  in  order 
that  thou  mayest  prosper  in  all  that  thou  doest,  and 

^  1  Chron.  xxix.  10-12.  '  Ibid.,  xxix.  18-20. 


8o      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

whithersoever  thou  turnest  thyself;  In  order  that 
the  Eternal  may  fulfil  His  word  which  He  hath  spoken 
concerning  me,  saying,  If  thy  children  take  heed  to 
their  way,  to  walk  before  Me  in  truth  with  all  their 
heart  and  with  all  their  soul,  there  shall  never  fail  thee, 
said  He,  a  man  on  the  throne  of  Israel."  ^ 

The  language  of  King  David  is  not  that  of  the  New 
Testament ;  his  religion  is  not  that  of  a  Christian ;  nor 
is  his  faith  that  of  a  believer  in  a  triumvirate  or  any 
other  number  of  gods.  His  language  and  religion  are 
those  of  a  Jew ;  of  one  for  whom  there  is  but  one  God, 
the  Eternal,  the  God  of  his  fathers  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob;  the  God  who  declared  by  the  mouth  of 
his  servant  Moses,  "See  now  that  I,  even  I,  am  He, 
and  there  is  no  god  with  Me;  I  alone  kill,  and  I  make 
alive;  I  wound,  and  I  heal;  and  no  one  can  deliver 
out  of  My  hand."  ^ 

Our  Christian  friends  are  welcome  to  all  the  comfort 
they  can  extract  from  the  words  of  King  David. 

One  of  the  fundamental  theories  of  Christianity  is 
that  the  Eternal,  that  is,  God  the  Father,  has  delegated 
all  His  power  and  authority  to  God  the  Son,  and 
given  him  His  kingdom  and  rule;  and  that  the  Son  is  to 
reign  until  he  has  subdued  all  the  enemies  of  the 
Father,  at  which  time  he  will  deliver  up  the  Kingdom 
to  Him.  According  to  this  theory,  it  is  the  Son,  that 
is,  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  to  do  the  work  of  subduing 
the  enemies  of  God,  and  not  God  Himself.  It  is 
Jesus  Christ  who  is  to  subdue  the  enemies  of  God; 
and  not  God  who  is  to  subdue  the  enemies  of  Christ. 
We  therefore  read  in    the  New  Testament:    "Then 

*  I  Kings  ii.  1-4.  *  Deut.  xxxii.  39. 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  8l 

Cometh  the  end,  when  he  (that  is,  the  Son)  shall  have 
delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority 
and  power.  For  he  (the  Son)  must  reign,  till  he  hath 
put  all  enemies  under  His  feet.  .  .  .  And  when 
all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  Him,  then  shall  the 
Son  also  be  subject  unto  Him  that  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  * 

This  arrangement  is  manifestly  the  very  opposite  of 
that  mentioned  in  the  first  verse  of  the  iioth  Psalm: 
"The  Eternal  said  to  my  lord  (Adonee),  Sit  thou  at 
My  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  foot- 
stool"; for  we  are  here  told  that  it  is  not  the  person 
who  is  the  A  donee  of  the  Psalm  who  is  to  put  God's 
enemies  as  a  stool  under  God's  feet;  but  that  this 
Adonee  is  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Almighty, 
that  is,  he  is  to  remain  quiet  and  not  bestir  himself, 
until  God  Himself  shall  make  the  enemies  of  this 
Adonee  the  latter's  footstool.  Supposing,  therefore, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  iioth  Psalm  is  a 
Messianic  prophecy,  and  refers  to  Jesus  Christ,  we 
thus  find  that  it  directly  contradicts  one  of  the  funda- 
mental theories  of  the  Christian  rehgion. 

There  is  neither  contradiction  nor  inconsistency 
about  the  Psalm,  when  it  is  applied  to  King  David,  as 
its  subject.  He  was  the  Adonee,  the  lord  and  master, 
of  his  country  and  his  subjects;  and  the  Almighty  is 
represented  as  saying  to  him,  "Sit  thou  at  My  right 
hand,"  that  is,  Remain  at  home — and  David's  place 
as  king  was  at  the  right  hand  of  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord — there  is   no  occasion  for  thee  to  go  out  to  the 

6  •  I  Corin.  xv.  24,  25,  28. 


82 


A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 


war,  "until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool.  The 
staff  of  thy  strength  will  the  Eternal  stretch  forth  out 
of  Zion;  rule  thou  in  the  midst  of  thy  enemies."  This 
is  appHcable  to  King  David,  for  God  did  send  the  rod 
of  his  strength  out  of  Zion,  and  he  did  rule  in  the 
midst  of  his  enemies;  but  it  is  not  appUcable  to  Jesus, 
for  the  latter  did  not  rule  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies, 
neither  did  God  send  him  any  rod  of  strength.  God, 
on  the  contrary,  abandoned  him;  ''My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  was  his  dying  exclama- 
tion.^ 

The  iioth  Psalm  is  considered  to  have  been  com- 
posed by  some  one,  now  unknown,  as  an  address  to 
King  David,  on  the  occasion  of  the  capture  of  the 
city  of  Kabbah.  "The  land  of  Kabbah"  is  mentioned 
in  the  sixth  verse,  and  is,  in  the  Anglican  version  of 
the  Bible,  incorrectly  translated,  "many  countries." 

David  had  sent  his  army,  under  the  command  of 
Joab,  upon  a  campaign  against  the  Ammonites;  he 
himself  remaining  in  Jerusalem.  "And  Joab  fought 
against  Kabbah  of  the  children  of  Ammon,  and  capt- 
ured the  royal  city.  And  Joab  sent  messengers  to 
David,  and  said,  I  have  fought  against  Kabbah,  and 
have  also  captured  the  water-town.  And  now  gather 
the  rest  of  the  people  together,  and  encamp  against 
the  city,  and  capture  it;  lest  I  capture  the  city  myself, 
and  it  be  called  by  my  name.  And  David  gathered 
all  the  people  together,  and  went  to  Kabbah,  and 
fought  against  it,  and  captured  it."  ^ 

This    explanation    will    enable    us    to    understand 
the   allusions   made   in   the   Psalm,  which   continues 

'  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  '-^  2  Sam.  xii.  26-29. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  83 

thus:  *'  Thy  people  volunteer  in  the  day  of  thy  power, 
in  the  ornaments  of  holiness;  thy  youth  (that  is,  thy 
young  men,  thy  warriors)  is  to  thee  as  dew  from  the 
womb  of  the  morning.  The  Eternal  hath  sworn,  and 
will  not  repent  of  it.  Thou  art  a  chief  ruler  forever, 
according  to  promise  (or  according  to  My  word), 
O  righteous  king.  The  Lord  at  thy  right  hand  crush- 
eth  kings  on  the  day  of  His  wrath.  He  will  judge 
among  the  nations — there  shall  be  a  fulness  of  corpses 
— he  crusheth  heads  over  the  land  of  Rabbah.  From 
the  brook  will  he  drink  on  the  way  (that  is,  in  the 
haste  of  pursuit  the  king  will  not  stop  to  have  water 
brought  to  him,  but  will  drink  it  as  he  finds  it  on  his 
way;  or  it  may  also  mean.  Wherever  he  goes  God 
provides  him  with  the  brook  to  quench  his  thirst,  and 
so  to  gain  a  complete  victory):  therefore  will  he  lift 
up  the  head."  * 

There  are  no  recorded  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
that  can  make  the  iioth  Psalm  applicable  to  him; 
but  it  does  in  every  way  fit  in  with  what  we  know  of 
the  life  of  the  warrior-king  David. 

Before  leaving  this  Psalm,  it  will  be  well  to  give 
some  consideration  to  the  fourth  verse,  the  familiar  ren- 
dering of  which  is,  "The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will 
not  repent  of  it.  Thou  shalt  be  a  priest  forever  after 
the  order  of  Malkizedek";  because  this  translation  of 
the  verse  is  made  the  subject  of  an  elaborate  argument 
by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  same 
argument  is  to  this  day  advanced  by  Christian  theo- 
logians. Their  contention,  briefly  stated,  is  this: 
that  although  the  Aaronic   priesthood  was  instituted 

*  Ps.  ex.  3-7. 


84     A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

by  the  Almighty  under  the  most  solemn  sanctions, 
still  it  could  be  changed,  and  was  changed,  to  make 
way  for  the  priesthood  of  Christ  and  the  spiritual 
priesthood  of  all  believers  in  him;  that  the  priesthood 
of  Aaron  could  be  changed  because  it  was  instituted 
by  God  without  an  oath;  but  that  the  priesthood  of 
Christ  is  unchangeable  because,  according  to  the  verse 
now  in  question,  ''The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  not 
repent  of  it,  thou  shalt  be  a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Malkizedek";  and  Christian  opinion,  ignoring 
the  context,  of  course  is  that  Jesus,  and  no  one  else, 
must  be  here  referred  to,  as  the  A  donee  of  the  Psalm. 
We  have  already  seen  the  absurdity  of  this  contention. 

A  very  obvious  objection  to  this  Christian  argument 
is  that  it  likens  the  Almighty  unto  a  man,  whom  it  is 
safer  to  believe  on  his  oath  than  on  his  mere  word. 
But,  "God  is  not  a  man  that  He  should  lie;  nor  a  son 
of  man  that  He  should  repent:  hath  He  said,  and 
shall  He  not  do  it?  And  hath  He  spoken,  and  shall 
He  not  fulfil  it  ?"  *  This  consideration  alone  is  fatal  to 
the  Christian  contention. 

''And  the  Eternal  spoke  unto  Moses,  saying,  Phine- 
has,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest, 
hath  turned  away  My  wrath  from  the  children  of 
Israel,  while  he  was  zealous  in  My  stead  in  the  midst 
of  them,  that  I  consumed  not  the  children  of  Israel  in 
My  indignation.  Therefore  say,  Behold,  I  give  unto 
him  My  covenant  of  peace;  and  it  shall  be  unto  him 
and  unto  his  seed  after  him  a  covenant  oj  an  everlasting 
priesthood;  because  he  was  zealous  jor  his  God,  and  made 
an  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel."  ^ 

'  Numb,  xxiii.  19.  ^  Ibid.,  xxv.  10-13. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  85 

It  is  this  formal  promise,  made  by  God  to  Phinehas 
the  Zealous,  that  our  Christian  friends  contend  that 
the  Almighty  could  break,  and  did  break,  because  it 
was  given  by  Him  without  an  oath  I 


VII. 


If  we  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that,  as 
Christians  pretend,  David  was  a  prophet,  that  the 
iioth  Psalm  was  a  prophecy  by  him  concerning  Jesus, 
and  that  in  this  Psalm  David  predicted  a  change  in  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  and  the  substitution  in  its  place 
of  the  priesthood  of  Christ :  then  not  only  does  David, 
in  this  very  important  matter,  contradict  the  prophet 
Moses,  but  he,  David  himself,  is  also  contradicted  by 
prophets  who  came  after  him  and  who  support  Moses. 
Thus  we  read  in  Isaiah:  "And  they  shall  bring  all 
your  brethren  out  of  all  nations  as  an  offering  unto  the 
Eternal  .  .  .  And  of  them  also  will  I  take  for 
priests  and  for  Levites,  saith  the  Eternal."  ^  That  is, 
that  from  the  Israelites  who  are  brought  back  to  their 
Promised  Land,  the  Almighty  will  take  those  who  are 
priests  and  Levites,  and  they  shall  serve  before  Him; 
so  that,  according  to  Isaiah,  the  ancient  order  of  priests 
and  Levites  is  not  to  be  changed,  but  is  to  be  continued 
in  their  descendants. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  well  as  that 
of  the  house  of  David,  is  also  foretold  by  Jeremiah. 
"For  thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  There  shall  never  be 
wanting  unto  David  a  man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 

'  Isaiah  \x\\.  20,  21. 


86      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

the  house  of  Israel;  and  unto  the  priests  the  Levites 
there  shall  not  be  wanting  a  man  before  Me,  to  offer 
burnt  offerings,  and  to  burn  meat  offerings,  and  to 
prepare  sacrifices  at  all  times."  "Thus  hath  said  the 
Eternal,  If  ye  can  break  My  covenant  of  the  day,  and 
My  covenant  of  the  night,  and  so,  that  there  should 
not  be  day  and  night  in  their  season;  Then  also  shall 
My  covenant  be  broken  with  David  My  servant,  that 
he  should  not  have  a  son  to  reign  upon  his  throne; 
and  (that)  with  the  Levites  the  priests.  My  ministers. 
As  the  host  of  heaven  cannot  be  numbered,  and  the 
sand  of  the  sea  cannot  be  measured ;  so  will  I  multiply 
the  seed  of  David  My  servant,  and  the  Levites  that 
minister  unto  Me."  *  And  to  this  day  there  are  many 
who  claim  descent  from  David;  and  everywhere  we 
meet  with  those  whom  common  consent  hallows  as  the 
sons  of  Aaron  and  Levi. 

We  also  read  in  Ezekiel,  "And  he  said  unto  me, 
Son  of  man,  thus  hath  said  the  Lord  Eternal,  These 
are  the  statutes  of  the  altar  on  the  day  when  it  shall 
be  finished,  to  offer  thereon  burnt-offerings,  and  to 
sprinkle  thereon  blood.  And  thou  shalt  give  to  the 
priests  the  Levites  that  are  of  the  seed  of  Zadok,  who 
approach  unto  Me,  saith  the  Lord  Eternal,  to  minister 
unto  Me,  a  young  bullock  for  a  sin-offering."^  And 
again,  "But  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok, 
that  kept  the  charge  of  My  sanctuary  when  the  children 
of  Israel  went  astray  from  Me — these  are  they  that 
shall  come  near  unto  Me,  to  minister  unto  Me,  and 
they  shall  stand  before  Me  to  offer  unto  Me  the  fat 
and  the  blood,  saith  the  Lord   Eternal:    These  are 

*  Jere.  xxxiii.  17,  18,  20-22.  '  Ezek.  xliii.  18,  19, 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  87 

they  that  shall  enter  into  My  sanctuary,  and  these 
shall  come  near  to  My  table,  to  minister  unto  Me; 
and  they  shall  keep  My  charge."  ^  Zadok,  the  priest 
here  spoken  of,  was  a  descendant  of  Phinehas,  the 
grandson  of  Aaron.  It  was  this  Zadok  who,  by  com- 
mand of  David,  anointed  Solomon  as  king;  and 
Solomon  made  him  high  priest  in  the  place  of  Abiathar, 
who  was  descended  through  EH  from  Ithamar,  the 
brother  of  Phinehas. 

We  therefore  have  both  Moses  and  Ezckiel  prophe- 
sying the  continuation  of  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  as 
an  everlasting  priesthood,  in  his  descendants  of  the  line 
of  Phinehas ;  and  we  have  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  prophe- 
sying the  continuation  of  the  ancient  order  of  priests 
and  Levites;  and  we  are  in  consequence  forced  to 
come  to  one  of  two  conclusions,  namely,  either  that 
Moses  and  Ezekiel,  and  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  were 
false  prophets,  which  is  inadmissible,  even  from  the 
Christian  point  of  view;  or  else,  that  our  Christian 
friends  are  again  in  error  with  respect  to  the  meaning 
and  application  of  the  iioth  Psalm.  And  we  have 
already  seen  that  this  Psalm  is  obviously  a  mere  rela- 
tion by  some  third  person  of  events  that  had  happened 
in  or  were  connected  with  the  life  of  David,  and  was 
no  prophecy,  and  had  no  connection  with  the  Messiah. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  applying  the  familiar  ren- 
dering of  the  verse,  "The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will 
not  repent  of  it,  Thou  shall  be  a  priest  (Cohain)  for- 
ever after  the  order  of  Malkizedek,"  to  King  Da\id; 
for,  in  a  general  sense,  every  Israelite  is  a  priest 
(Cohain).     ''And  ye  shall  be  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of 

*  Ezek.  xliv.  15,  16. 


88      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

priests  (Cohanim)  and  a  holy  nation."  ^  The  term 
Cohain,  priest,  also  indicated  a  temporal  as  well  as  a 
spiritual  ruler.  ''And  Zadok  the  son  of  Achitub,  and 
Achimelech  the  son  of  Abiathar,  were  priests  (Coha- 
nim); .  .  .  and  David's  sons  were  chief  rulers 
{Cohanim)y^  "And  Sheva  was  scribe:  and  Zadok 
and  Abiathar  were  priests  {Cohanim)]  and  Ira  also 
the  Yairite  was  an  officer  of  state  (Cohain)  unto 
David."  ^  "And  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  was  over 
the  army;  and  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were  the  priests 
(Cohanim) ;  and  Azariah  the  son  of  Nathan  was  over 
the  officers;  and  Zabud  the  son  of  Nathan  was  prin- 
cipal officer  (Cohain)  and  the  king's  friend."  *  The 
verse  in  question  therefore  simply  means  that,  as 
Malkizedek  was  king  and  priest  at  Salem,  afterward 
Jerusalem,  so  David  also  would  be  both  temporal 
chief  and  a  priest  in  the  general  sense.  This  precisely 
indicated  the  duty  of  a  king  of  Israel ;  for  it  was  a  part 
of  his  duty  to  organize  and  superintend  the  temple 
worship,  as  David  did,  but  without  infringing  on  the 
office  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  in  which  not  even 
the  king  of  Israel  could  share. 

As  already  mentioned,  the  verse  in  question  can  also 
be  translated,  "Thou  art  a  chief  ruler  (Cohain)  for- 
ever, according  to  promise  (or  according  to  My  word), 
O  righteous  king."  The  meaning  of  Malki-zedek'* 
is  "righteous  king."  This  rendering  is  also  appli- 
cable to  David,  in  whose  line  the  kingship  over  Israel 
was  forever  guaranteed.  "And  thy  house  and  thy 
kingdom  shall  be  steadfast  forever  before  thee;    thy 

'  Exod.  xix.  6.     '■*  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  18.     ^  Ibid.,  xx.  25,  26. 
*  I  Kings  iv.  4,  5. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  89 

throne  shall  be  established  forever."^  "And  they 
shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  have  given  unto  Jacob 
My  servant,  wherein  your  fathers  dwelt;  and  they 
shall  dwell  therein,  they,  and  their  children,  and  their 
children's  children  forever;  and  David  My  servant 
shall  be  their  prince  forever."^ 

Thus,  from  whatever  point  of  view  we  consider  the 
2d  and  iioth  Psalms,  we  find  the  Christian  interpre- 
tation and  application  of  them  forced  and  unwarranted, 
and  manifestly  and  absurdly  wrong. 

The  next  questions  were:  "Do  you  not  believe  us 
when  we  say  that  we  hold  fast  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
head ?  We  do  not  regard  Christ  as  separate  from  the 
Father  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Prince  of  Wales  is 
separate  from  the  Queen.  Christ  Himself  says,  *  I  and 
the  Father  are  One.'  ^  How  can  Christ  be  possibly  the 
Son  of  God  and  good^  if  He  does  not  speak  the  truth  ? 
Did  He  in  any  sense  put  Himself  forward  as  a  rival  of 
the  Almighty,  another  God?  If  He  was  without  sin, 
why  did  He  die?  How  did  He  rise  from  the  dead? 
If  He  did  not  rise,  what  became  of  His  body?" 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  confusion  of  ideas  that 
is  inseparable  from  any  consideration  of  the  Christian 
doctrines  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  of  a  Trinity  in 
Unity,  should  so  perplex  my  correspondent,  learned 
minister  of  the  Gospel  though  he  be,  that  he  should 
ask  such  conflicting  questions  as  those  just  mentioned. 
Questions  of  this  kind  the  Jews  are  not  called  upon  to 
answer.  They  are  a  consequence  of  the  impossible 
position  into  which  our  Christian  friends  have  placed 
themselves;   and  they  must  solve  their  own  enigmas. 

'  2  Sam.  vii.  16.  ^  Ezek.  xxxvii.  25.  ^  John  x.  30. 


90      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that  the  doctrines  that 
were  adopted  as  orthodox  by  the  Christian  church, 
concerning  the  nature  and  the  distinction  of  the  three 
Gods  who  composed  their  Trinity,  should  have  been 
fixed  and  determined  by  the  disciples  and  commenta- 
tors of  a  heathen  philosopher  who  Hved  400  years 
before  the  birth  of  Jesus.  In  the  fourth  century  before 
Christ,  the  speculations  of  Plato,  the  Athenian  philoso- 
pher, upon  the  nature  of  the  Cause  or  Creator  of  the 
universe  led  him  to  study  it  under  the  threefold  aspect 
of  a  First  Cause,  the  Reason  or  Logos,  and  the  Soul 
or  Spirit  of  the  universe;  and  the  Logos  was  specially 
considered  by  him  under  the  familiar  character  of 
the  Son  of  an  Eternal  Father,  and  the  Creator  and 
Governor  of  the  world.  The  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great  carried  the  language  and  learning  of  Greece 
into  Egypt  and  Asia;  and  the  theological  system  of 
Plato  was  taught  in  the  schools  of  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
and  other  Eastern  cities.  The  Old  Academy,  or  direct 
followers  of  Plato,  the  New  Academy,  or  disciples  of 
Carneades,  and  the  peripatetic  adherents  of  Aristotle, 
all  had  their  own  schools,  and  their  own  particular 
Logos,  who  agreed  with  the  others  in  some  points,  and 
differed  in  some.  They  had  their  teachers  in  every 
city,  and  studied  not  only  the  works  of  their  two 
great  masters  and  those  of  Xenophon,  which  we  now 
possess,  but  also  the  sixty  treatises  of  Xenocrates  and 
others,  which  have  since  been  lost. 

The  Logos  of  Plato  thus  became  as  well  known  to 
the  subtle-witted  people  of  the  East  as  to  the  educated 
Greeks ;  and  the  heathen  philosophy  of  the  age  greatly 
favored   the  progress  of  Christianity  and  dictated  its 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  9I 

doctrines.  Antioch,  which  had  been  the  capital  of 
the  Syro- Grecian  empire,  and  had  become  the  seat  of 
the  Roman  governors,  was  for  a  time  the  centre  of 
Christian  energy.  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  forth 
from  that  city  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles,  and  they  re- 
turned thither  to  report  their  success  to  those  by  whom 
"they  had  been  recommended  to  the  grace  of  God  for 
the  work  which  they  fulfilled "  ^ ;  and  projected  with 
them  future  missions.  The  Apostle  John  long  resided 
at  Ephesus,  the  centre  of  the  mingling  opinions  of  the 
East  and  the  West;  for  sixty  years  he  lived  in  the 
centres  of  Greek  philosophy ;  and  his  Gospel,  written 
when  he  was  ninety  years  old,  disclosed  to  the  Gentile 
world  the  amazing  secret  that  the  Logos ^  who  was 
with  God  from  the  beginning,  and  was  God,  who  had 
made  all  things,  and  for  whom  all  things  had  been 
made,  had  been  incarnate  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.^  After  the  Logos  had  been  thus  proclaimed 
as  the  sacred  object  of  the  faith,  the  hope,  and  the 
religious  worship  of  the  Christians,  their  mysterious 
system  was  readily  embraced  by  a  numerous  and  in- 
creasing multitude  in  every  province  of  the  Roman 
Empire;  and  the  sanction  thus  bestowed  by  the  last  of 
the  Apostles  on  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  theol- 
ogy of  Plato  encouraged  the  learned  Gentile  proselytes 
to  more  closely  study  the  writings  of  the  Athenian 
philosopher  who  had  so  marvellously  anticipated  the 
most  surprising  discovery  of  the  so-called  Christian 
revelation.  The  philosophical  speculations  and  ab- 
struse metaphysical  questions  that  had  neither  con- 
\inced  the  understanding  nor  inflamed  the  passions 

*  Acts  xiv.  26.  *  John  i. 


92       A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

of  the  Platonists — that  had  been  carelessly  regarded 
by  the  idle,  the  busy,  and  even  the  studious  part  of 
mankind — that  had  been  treated  as  the  amusement 
of  a  vacant  hour;  these  speculations  became  to  the 
Christian  world  the  most  serious  business  of  the  present 
and  the  most  useful  preparation  for  a  future  life.  A 
theology  which  it  was  incumbent  to  believe  and  impious 
to  doubt,  and  which  it  might  be  dangerous  and  even 
fatal  to  mistake,  became  the  familiar  topic  of  private 
meditation  and  popular  discourse.  The  same  subtle 
and  profound  questions  concerning  the  three  divine 
persons  of  the  mysterious  Triad  or  Trinity — an  ab- 
stract term  that  was  already  familiar  to  the  schools  of 
philosophy,  and  was  from  them  introduced  into  the 
theology  of  the  Christians — that  had  been  agitated  in 
the  philosophical,  were  discussed  in  the  Christian, 
schools  of  Alexandria.  The  cold  indifference  of  philos- 
ophy was  replaced  by  the  fervent  spirit  of  devotion; 
and  Christians,  even  of  the  uneducated  classes,  readily 
undertook  to  solve  the  questions  that  had  perplexed 
the  wisest  of  the  Grecian  sages. 

These  remarks  have  been  taken  from  Gibbon,^  and 
they  enable  us  to  understand  from  what  source  our 
Christian  friends  have  taken  their  religious  system. 
It  is  upon  the  theories  of  Plato  and  his  exponents,  and 
not  upon  the  theology  of  Moses  and  the  other  prophets 
of  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  Christianity  are  based. 

*  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  ch.  21  (Bohn,  1854). 


SOME  QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  93 


VIII. 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  said  to  have  been  written  in 
answer  to  the  importunities  of  the  Asiatic  bishops,  and 
as  a  confirmation  of  their  faith.  Besides  the  general 
design  of  fixing  on  a  firm  basis  the  divine  honors  of 
Christ,  it  had  the  particular  intention  of  confuting  two 
opposite  doctrines  which,  even  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostle,  disturbed  the  peace  of,  and  were  condemned 
as  heretical  by,  the  Christian  church. 

The  first  of  these  heresies  was  that  of  the  Ebionites, 
or  Jewish  Christians.  They  regarded  Jesus  as  the 
greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  endowed  with  super- 
natural virtue  and  power.  They  ascribed  to  his 
person  all  the  predictions  of  the  Hebrew  prophets 
relating  to  the  promised  Messiah ;  but  they  obstinately 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  his  preceding  existence  and 
divinity,  and  they  were  therefore  accounted  as  heretics 
by  the  Christian  fathers.  The  Ebionites  as  a  sect 
soon  ceased  to  exist ;  and  if  Christianity  had  depended 
on  the  Jewish  people  alone  for  support,  it  would  never 
have  adopted  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  nor 
would  it  have  long  survived  the  period  of  its  birth. 

The  second  and  opposite  heresy  was  that  held  by 
the  Gnostics,  who  were  distinguished  by  the  epithet 
of  Docetes.  These  deviated  into  the  contrary  extreme 
to  the  Ebionites,  and  denied  the  human,  while  they 
asserted  the  divine,  nature  of  Jesus.  Being  Gentile 
converts,  educated  in  the  school  of  Plato,  and  accus- 
tomed to  the  idea  of  the  Logos,  they  readily  conceded 


94     A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO    CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

that  the  brightest  emanation  of  the  Deity  might  assume 
the  outward  shape  and  visible  appearance  of  a  mortal; 
but  they  contended  that  the  imperfection  of  matter 
was  incompatible  with  the  purity  of  a  celestial  sub- 
stance; that  instead  of  issuing  from  the  womb  of  the 
virgin,  Jesus  had  descended  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan 
in  the  form  of  perfect  manhood ;  that  he  had  imposed 
on  the  senses  of  his  enemies  and  his  disciples;  and 
that  the  ministers  of  Pilate  had  wasted  their  impotent 
rage  on  an  airy  phantom,  who  seemed  (whence  their 
name  of  Docetes)  to  expire  on  the  cross,  and  after 
three  days  to  rise  from  the  dead.  They,  also,  were 
accounted  as  heretics  by  the  Christian  fathers. 

Orthodox  Christianity,  as  it  came  to  be  developed 
under  the  contending  influences  that  governed  its 
course,  required  from  its  followers  a  beUef  in  the 
human  as  well  as  in  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus.  It 
required  them  to  believe  that  he  was  both  ''God  and 
man,  born  and  unborn,  God  in  flesh,  life  in  death, 
born  of  Mary  and  born  of  God."  That  he  was  per- 
fectly human,  his  followers  could  not  doubt;  the  force 
of  circumstances  compelled  them  to  admit  it;  and  it 
would  have  been  ridiculous  of  them  to  have  attempted 
to  deny  it.  For  he  was  born  of  a  woman,  and  was 
suckled  and  grew  like  other  children;  he  had  flesh 
and  bones  like  other  men;  and  he  passed  through  the 
stages  of  life,  and  suffered  hunger  and  thirst,  weari- 
ness and  pain,  and  wounds  and  death,  like  other  men. 
His  soul,  also,  was  a  human  soul,  just  as  his  body  was 
a  human  body;  and  he  increased  gradually  in  knowl- 
edge and  wisdom,  as  he  did  in  stature;  and  he  felt 
sorrow  and  sympathy,  and  was  subject  to  temptation. 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  95 

and  was  liable  to  all  the  common  emotions  of  human 
nature. 

At  the  same  time  it  was  impossible  for  any  Christian, 
who  accepted  as  divine  revelations  the  writings  of  St. 
John  and  St.  Paul,  to  suppose  that  the  Saviour,  in 
whom  he  was  taught  to  trust  and  into  whose  name  he 
was  baptized,  was  a  mere  human  being  hke  himself. 
The  Christian  church  claimed  that  Jesus  was  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  he  was  a  God.  Eighty  years  after 
his  death,  the  Christians  of  Bithynia  declared  before 
the  tribunal  of  Pliny  that  they  invoked  him  as  a  God ; 
and  divine  honors  have  been  paid  him  in  every  age 
and  country  by  the  various  sects  who  assume  the  name 
of  his  disciples.  The  Platonic  theory  of  the  creation  of 
the  world  by  the  Logos,  or  Son  of  God,  was  gradually 
introduced  among  the  Christians;  and  after  it  came 
to  be  accepted  by  their  theologians,  and  confirmed  by 
the  last  of  the  Apostles,  the  dignity  of  the  workman 
very  naturally  rose  with  that  of  the  work.  And  though 
the  character  of  a  Son,  that  was  ascribed  to  him,  might 
seem  to  imply  a  perpetual  subordination  to  the  Author 
of  his  existence,  yet,  it  was  argued,  the  act  of  genera- 
tion, even  in  the  most  spiritual  and  abstract  sense, 
must  be  supposed  to  transmit  to  the  son  the  properties 
of  the  father's  nature;  and  therefore  it  came  to  be 
deemed  impious  by  the  followers  of  the  new  religion 
to  even  venture  to  circumscribe  the  powers  and  dura- 
tion of  the  Son  of  an  eternal  and  omnipotent  Father. 
These  and  other  considerations  engaged  the  early 
Christians  to  assert  the  equal  and  absolute  divinity  of 
the  Logos;  and  their  zeal  would  have  even  claimed 
for  him  the  throne  of  heaven,  if  they  had  not  been 


96      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

prevented  by  the  necessity  of  admitting  the  supremacy 
of  God  the  Father,  whose  pre-eminence,  however,  was 
acknowledged  by  them  only  so  far  as  it  was  deemed 
to  be  compatible  with  the  independence  of  the  Son. 
This  brief  exposition,  also  taken  principally  from  Gib- 
bon,^ will  enable  us  to  form  an  idea  of  the  position  and 
importance  assigned  to  Jesus  in  the  Trinity  of  the 
Christian  religion. 

The  same  historian  observes  that  the  human  under- 
standing was  capable  of  forming  three  distinct  systems 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  Trinity;  and  it  was  held 
by  orthodox  Christianity  that  none  of  these  systems 
were  exempt  from  heresy  and  error. 

The  first  system  was  that  of  the  Tritheists.  Accord- 
ing to  this  system,  there  were  three  Gods;  and  the 
Logos  possessed  all  the  inherent  and  incommunicable 
perfections  which  religion  and  philosophy  appropriate 
to  the  Supreme  God.  Three  distinct  and  infinite 
minds  or  substances,  three  co-equal  and  co-eternal 
beings,  composed  the  divine  essence;  and  it  would 
have  implied  contradiction  that  any  of  them  should 
not  have  existed,  or  that  they  should  ever  cease  to 
exist.  The  advocates  of  this  system,  which  seemed  to 
establish  three  independent  deities,  attempted  to  pre- 
serve the  Unity  of  the  First  Cause,  so  conspicuous  in 
the  design  and  order  of  the  world,  by  pleading  the 
perpetual  concord  of  their  administration  and  the  es- 
sential agreement  of  their  will.  The  three  gods  are 
guided  by  such  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  that 
they  always  choose  the  same  means  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  same  ends.     But  this  doctrine  of  the 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  ch.  21  (Bohn,  1854). 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  .97 

Tritheists  was  rejected  by  the  orthodox  Christian 
church  as  heretical,  because  to  acknowledge  a  beUef 
in  three  Gods  was  obviously  nothing  else  than  idolatry. 
The  beUef  might  be  there,  but  it  could  not  be  avowed, 
and  had  to  be  disguised. 

The  second  hypothesis  was  that  of  the  Sabellians. 
In  this  system,  three  Beings  who  possess  all  the  divine 
attributes  in  their  most  perfect  degree — who  are 
eternal  in  duration,  infinite  in  space,  and  intimately 
present  to  each  other  and  to  the  whole  universe — 
irresistibly  force  themselves  on  the  astonished  mind  as 
one  and  the  same  Being,  who  may  manifest  Himself 
under  different  forms  and  be  considered  under  differ- 
ent aspects.  By  this  hypothesis,  a  real  substantial 
Trinity  is  refined  into  a  trinity  of  names;  and  the 
Logos  is  no  longer  a  person,  but  an  attribute.  The 
incarnation  of  the  Logos  is  reduced  to  a  mere  inspira- 
tion of  the  divine  wisdom,  which  filled  the  soul  and 
directed  all  the  actions  of  the  man  Jesus ;  and  it  is  only 
in  a  figurative  sense  that  the  title  of  Son  can  be  appHed 
to  the  eternal  reason  which  was  with  God  from  the 
beginning,  and  by  which,  and  not  by  whom,  all  things 
were  made.  The  doctrine  of  Sabellius  was  rejected 
as  heretical  by  the  Christian  fathers,  because  it  main- 
tained that  there  is  but  one  person  in  the  Godhead, 
and  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  only  different 
powers,  operations,  or  offices  of  the  One  God  the  Father. 
The  SabelUans,  in  short,  did  not  make  the  distinction 
between  the  three  Gods  who  composed  the  Christian 
Trinity  broad  enough. 

The  third  system  was  that  maintained  by  Arius  and 
his  disciples;  and  it  was  condemned  by  the  Christian 
7 


98      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

church  because  it  made  the  distinction  between  God 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  too  great.  According  to  the 
Arian  doctrine,  the  Logos  was  a  dependent  and  spon- 
taneous production,  created  from  nothing  by  the  will 
of  the  Father.  The  Son,  by  whom  all  things  were 
made,  had  been  begotten  before  all  worlds;  and  the 
longest  of  the  astronomical  periods  could  be  compared 
only  as  a  fleeting  moment  to  the  extent  of  his  duration ; 
yet  this  duration  was  not  infinite,  and  there  had  been 
a  time  which  preceded  the  ineffable  generation  of  the 
Logos.  On  this  only  begotten  Son  the  Almighty  Father 
had  transfused  His  ample  spirit  and  impressed 
the  effulgence  of  His  glory.  Visible  image  of  in\ds- 
ible  perfection,  he  saw  at  an  immeasurable  distance 
beneath  his  feet  the  thrones  of  the  brightest  archan- 
gels; yet  he  shone  only  with  a  reflected  Hght,  and  he 
governed  the  universe  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  his 
Father  and  Monarch.  Arianism  was  condemned  as 
heretical,  because  it  held  Christ  to  be  a  created  being; 
inferior  to  God  the  Father  in  nature  and  dignity;  and 
orthodox  Christianity  did  not  admit  this.  By  making 
Christ  subordinate  to  God,  Arius  denied  his  divinity 
in  its  highest  sense;  and  for  doing  this  he  was  ex- 
communicated.^ 

The  struggle  of  the  Christian  church  against  Arian- 
ism led  to  the  holding  of  the  Council  of  Nice;  and 
the  Nicene  Creed — "the  holy  symbol  declared  at  Nice, 
established  at  Constantinople,  strengthened  at  Ephesus, 
and  sealed  at  Chalcedon" — proclaimed  the  belief  of 
orthodox  Christianity  with  regard  to  the  three  gods 
who  composed  the  Trinity  of  their  theological  system. 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  ch.  21  (Bohn,  1854). 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  99 

This  confession  of  faith  ordered  belief  ''in  one  God, 
the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of  all  things,  both  vis- 
ible and  invisible;  and  in  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ, 
the  son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father,  only  begotten, 
that  is  to  say,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  God 
of  God  and  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God, 
begotten,  not  made,  being  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  both 
things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth,  who,  for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  and  was  made 
flesh,  made  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  on  the 
third  day,  went  up  into  the  heavens,  and  is  to  come 
again  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead;  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

The  Nicene  Creed  may  be  taken,  in  more  than  one 
sense,  as  a  very  suggestive  exposition  of  Christian 
behef  regarding  the  three  Gods  of  their  Trinity.  For, 
of  the  122  words  within  the  quotation  marks,  14  refer 
to  the  Father  Almighty,  5  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  103 
are  devoted  to  Jesus  Christ;  and  this  apportionment 
of  the  creed  between  the  three  Gods  may  be  regarded 
as  emblematical  of  the  relative  importance  attached 
to  each  of  them  in  the  religious  system  of  our  Christian 
friends. 


IX 


The  synopsis  I  have  just  given  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tian belief  and  doctrine  regarding  the  three  Gods  who 
compose  their  Trinity  will  throw  light  on  the  questions 
asked  by  my  correspondent. 


lOO     A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

*'Do  you  not  believe  us  when  we  say  that  we  hold 
fast  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead?  Christ  Himself  says, 
"I  and  the  Father  are  One."  ^  One  what?  One  per- 
son? One  Being?  One  God?  Certainly  not;  for 
this  would  not  only  be  inconsistent  with  the  relation- 
ship that  is  expressed  by  the  terms  "Father"  and 
"Son,"  but  it  would  also  be  contrary  to  the  beUef  of 
orthodox  Christianity. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  orthodox  Christian  belief 
with  regard  to  their  Trinity  is  that  there  are  three  co- 
existent and  co-eternal  Gods,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  each  of  whom  has  his  own  hypostasis, 
or  separate  and  distinct  being,  which  is  commonly 
expressed  by  saying  that  the  Godhead  consists  of  three 
persons;  and  that  the  second  person  in  the  Godhead, 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  the  creator  of  all  things 
in  heaven  and  on  earth.^  These  three  Gods  do  not 
together  constitute  One  God,  but  One  Godhead ;  that 
is,  they  are  said  to  be  One,  not  because  they  form  but 
One  Being  or  God,  not  because  they  are  different 
names  or  manifestations  of  the  One  God,  but  because 
they  are  supposed  to  partake  of  the  same  divine  nature, 
and  to  possess  the  same  attributes,  and  to  together 
constitute  the  one  executive  or  governing  body  or 
committee.  This  being  the  Christian  belief,  their 
expressions  of  the  "Unity  of  the  Godhead,"  and  of  a 
"Trinity  in  Unity,"  are  incorrect,  meaningless,  and 
incomprehensible  phrases,  and  mere  catchpenny  ex- 
pressions with  which  our  Christian  friends  deceive 
themselves,  and  with  which  they  would  try  to  lead 
the    IsraeHtes    astray.     What    the    Christian    theory 

•  John  X.  30.  ="  John  1.  3,  lOi  Colos.  i.  16. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  lOT 

really  gives  us  is  a  triumvirate  of  Gods,  only  they  dare 
not  designate  it  by  this,  its  correct  expression,  because, 
if  so  presented,  it  would  conflict  so  glaringly  with  the 
revelations  the  Almighty  given  us  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  none  of  them  who  professed  to  believe  in 
the  latter  could  ever  accept  it.  Therefore  they  dis- 
guise their  doctrine  under  phrases  that  human  intelH- 
gence  has  never  been  able  to  understand,  much  less  to 
explain. 

The  word  Godhead  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead  is  an  expres- 
sion that  has  no  meaning  in  Old  Testament  language. 
The  Jewish  Scriptures  declare  the  Unity  of  God,  but 
this  is  not  the  same  thing,  and  has  not  the  same  mean- 
ing, as  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead.  The  latter  expression 
is  a  phrase  that  one  cannot  understand,  and  whose 
meaning  cannot  be  explained,  because  it  is  involved 
in  darkness,  perplexity,  and  inevitable  contradiction. 
Even  the  great  Athanasius,  who  was  the  master- 
mind of  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  who  has  been  called 
the  most  sagacious  of  Christian  theologians,  confessed 
that  whenever  he  forced  his  understanding  to  meditate 
on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  his  toilsome  and  unavail- 
ing efforts  recoiled  on  themselves;  that  the  more  he 
thought,  the  less  he  comprehended;  and  the  more  he 
wrote,  the  less  capable  was  he  of  expressing  his 
thoughts.^ 

The  "Unity  of  God,"  on  the  other  hand,  is  an 
expression  that  conveys  to  our  minds  a  distinct  and 
definite  meaning  ;  and  it  teaches  us  a  doctrine,  simple 
but  most  subUme,  that  even  a  child  can  understand. 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  p.  400  (Bohn,  1854). 


I02      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

It  teaches  us  that  there  is  but  One  God,  who  is  the 
Almighty  and  Sole  Creator,  Preserver  and  Ruler  of 
the  world ;  and  this  teaching  is  in  accordance  with  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation.  For, 
if  there  is  one  doctrine  that  is  affirmed  and  reaffirmed, 
over  and  over  again,  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  in- 
sisted upon  more  than  any  other,  it  is  the  grand  dogma 
that  there  is  but  one  sole  god,  who  is  the  Creator  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  that  beside  Him  there  is  none 
else. 

A  few  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  will  show 
us  how  radically  opposed  the  Jewish  Scriptures  are  to 
the  Christian  theory  of  there  being  three  Gods — the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal 
is  One."  ^ — "Unto  thee  it  was  shown,  that  thou  might- 
est  know,  that  the  Eternal  is  God;  there  is  none  else 
beside  Him."^ — "Know,  therefore,  this  day,  and  re- 
flect in  thy  heart,  that  the  Eternal  He  is  the  God  in 
the  heavens  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath,  there 
is  none  else."  ^ — "See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and 
there  is  no  god  with  Me ;  I  alone  kill,  and  I  make  alive ; 
I  wound,  and  I  heal;  and  no  one  can  deliver  out  of  My 
hand."* — " Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  the  King  of 
Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Eternal  of  Hosts,  I  am 
the  first,  and  I  am  the  last;  and  beside  Me  there  is 
no  god."  " — "Fear  ye  not,  neither  be  afraid;  have  not 
I  told  thee  from  that  time,  and  have  declared  it? 
Ye  are  even  My  witnesses.  Is  there  a  god  beside  Mc  ? 
Yea,  there  is  no  god;  I  know  not  any."' — "I  am  the 

'  Deut.  vi.  4.  ^  Ibid.  iv.  35.  ^  Ibid.  iv.  39. 

*  Ibid,  xxxii.  39.  ^  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  ^  Ibid.  xliv.  8. 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  103 

Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else,  there  is  no  god  beside 
Me;  I  girded  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  Me; 
that  they  may  know  from  the  rising  of  the  sun,  and 
from  the  west,  that  there  is  none  beside  Me;  I  am  the 
Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else."  '  — "  Tell  ye,  and  bring 
them  near;  yea,  let  them  take  counsel  together:  who 
hath  declared  this  from  ancient  time?  who  hath 
told  it  from  that  time?  have  not  I,  the  Eternal? 
and  there  is  no  god  else  beside  Me;  a  just  God  and  a 
Saviour;  there  is  none  beside  Me.  Look  unto  Me 
and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth;  for  I  am  God, 
and  there  is  none  else."^ — "Remember  the  former 
things  of  old:  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else; 
I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  Hke  Me."  ^ — "I  am  the 
Eternal,  thy  God,  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  thou 
shall  know  no  God  but  Me;  and  there  is  no  saviour 
beside  Me."  ^ 

"Then  went  King  David  in,  and  sat  down  before  the 
Eternal,  and  he  said  .  .  .  Therefore  art  Thou 
great,  O  Eternal  God;  for  there  is  none  like  Thee, 
and  there  is  no  god  beside  Thee,  in  accordance  with 
all  that  we  have  heard  with  our  ears."' — "And  Solo- 
mon now  placed  himself  before  the  akar  of  the  Eternal 
in  the  presence  of  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  and 
spread  forth  his  hands  toward  heaven;  And  he  said, 
Eternal,  the  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  god  like  thee, 
in  the  heavens  above,  and  on  the  earth  beneath,  Thou 
who  keepest  the  covenant  and  the  kindness  for  Thy 
servants  that  walk  before  Thee  with  all  their  heart."" 
— "And  let  these  my  words,  wherewith  I  have  made 

'  Isaiah  xlv.  5,  6.       '  Ibid.  xlv.  21,  22.  ^  Ibid.  xlvi.  9. 

*  Hosea  xiii.  4.  ^  2  Sam.  vii.  18,  22.  '  i  Kings  viii.  22,  23. 


I04      A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

supplication  before  the  Eternal,  be  nigh  unto  the 
Eternal  our  God  day  and  night,  that  He  maintain  the 
cause  of  His  servant,  and  the  cause  of  His  people 
Israel  in  their  daily  necessities.  That  all  the  people 
of  the  earth  may  know  that  the  Eternal  He  is  the  God, 
and  there  is  none  else."  ^ 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  hundreds  of  verses  to  be 
found  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  which  the  Unity  of 
God  is  declared  in  language  plain  and  simple  enough 
to  meet  the  understanding  of  all;  and  which  neither 
man  nor  child  can  fail  to  comprehend.  Against  these 
forcible  and  unequivocal  assertions  of  the  absolute 
Unity  of  God  our  Christian  friends  are  unable  to  cite 
from  the  Old  Testament  even  one  equally  plain  and 
straightforward  declaration  in  favor  of  their  theory  of 
a  trinity  or  triumvirate  of  Gods;  they  cannot  quote, 
in  favor  of  their  doctrine,  one  verse  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  cannot  easily  be  shown  to  have  an 
obviously  different  and  more  reasonable  meaning  than 
the  one  they  give  it :  and  yet  they  will  persist  in  trying 
to  induce  the  Jews  to  disobey  the  God  who  com- 
manded, "I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God;  thou  shalt  have 
no  other  god  before  Me."  ^ 

Orthodox  Christianity  also  claims  that  Jesus,  the 
Logos,  the  pretended  Son  of  God,  was  the  creator  of 
all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth ;  ^  and,  beUeving  this, 
my  correspondent,  a  learned  Christian  minister,  asks, 
"Did  He  in  any  sense  put  Himself  forward  as  a  rival 
of  the  Almighty,  another  god?"  The  question  shows 
again  how  conflicting  and  inconsistent  are  the  ideas 
that  Christians  find  themselves  obliged  to  reconcile, 

^  I  Kings  viii.  59,  60.      ^  Exod.  xx.  2,  3.      '  John  i.  3,  10;  Colos.  i.  16. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  105 

when  they  attempt  to  justify  their  behef  in  the- exist- 
ence of  their  trinity.  Thus,  they  take  up  here  two 
positions  that  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  one 
another;  for  they  pretend,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Jesus 
was  the  creator  of  heaven  and  earth;  and,  on  the  other, 
they  would  have  us  believe  that  they  do  not  put  him 
forward  as  the  rival  of  the  Almighty,  and  another  god ! 

The  Old  Testament  shows  as  little  consideration  for 
the  Chiistian  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by 
Jesus  as  it  does  for  their  claim  of  the  existence  of 
three  gods. 

''Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  thy  Redeemer,  and  He 
that  formed  thee  from  the  womb,  I  am  the  Eternal, 
w^ho  hath  made  all  things;  who  hath  stretched  forth 
the  heavens  by  Myself  alone;  who  hath  spread  abroad 
the  earth  from  My  own  self."^ — "Thus  hath  said  the 
Eternal,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  ...  I  Myself 
have  made  the  earth,  and  created  man  upon  it;  I, 
even  My  hands,  have  stretched  out  the  heavens,  and 
I  have  ordained  all  their  host."^ — ''For  thus  hath  said 
the  Eternal,  the  Creator  of  the  heavens;  He,  the  God 
that  formed  the  earth  and  made  it;  He  that  hath 
established  it, — not  for  naught  did  He  create  it,  to  be 
inhabited  did  He  form  it ;  I  am  the  Eternal,  and  there 
is  no  one  else."' — "Hearken  unto  Me,  O  Jacob,  and 
Israel,  My  called  one!  I  am  He;  I  am  the  first,  I 
also  am  the  last.  My  hand  also  hath  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth,  and  My  right  hand  hath  spanned  out 
the  heavens;  I  call  unto  them,  they  stand  forward 
together."^ — "And   thou   forgettest    the    Eternal,    thy 

'  Isaiah  xliv.  24.  '  Ibid.  xlv.  11,  12. 

^  Ibid.  xlv.  18.  ■*  Ibid,  xlviii.  12,  13. 


I06     A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Maker,  who  hath  spread  out  the  heavens,  and  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  earth."  ^ — "By  the  word  of  the 
Eternal  were  the  heavens  made;  and  by  the  breath 
of  His  mouth  all  their  host.  .  .  .  Let  all  the  earth 
fear  the  Eternal:  of  Him  stand  in  awe  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  world.  For  He  spoke,  and  it  came  into 
being:  He  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast."  ^ 

All  the  sophistical  reasonings  and  fallacious  arguments 
of  Christian  theologians  cannot  alter  or  affect  the  word 
of  the  Almighty ;  when  He  declares  that  there  is  no  god 
beside  Him,  there  is  none,  neither  Jesus  Christ  nor 
Holy  Ghost;  and  all  the  arguments  in  the  world 
cannot  prevent  us  from  being  obliged  to  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  Christianity  is  not  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  a  system  of  faith  and  worship 
essentially  opposed  to  it. 

Eighteen  hundred  years  of  Christian  teaching  have 
utterly  failed  to  convince  the  people  of  Israel  of  its 
truth;  and  ten  times  as  many  more  years  of  the  same 
teaching  will  leave  the  Jews  what  they  are  to-day, 
firm  believers  in  the  absolute  Unity  and  tlie  truth  of 
the  God  who  commanded,  "I  am  the  Eternal,  thy  God, 
and  thou  shalt  know  no  god  but  Me;  and  there  is 
no  saviour  beside  Me." ' 

^  Isaiah  li.  13,  '  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  8,  9.  •  Hosea  xiii.  4. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  107 


''How  can  Christ  be  possibly  the  Son  of  God  and 
good^  if  He  does  not  speak  the  truth?  If  He  was 
without  sin,  why  did  He  die?  How  did  He  rise  from 
the  dead?  If  He  did  not  rise,  what  became  of  His 
body?" 

We  have  in  the  first  two  of  these  questions  another 
instance  of  the  false  reasoning  and  confusion  of  ideas 
that  are  inseparable  from  any  consideration  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus;  for,  if  he 
were  God,  he  must  have  been  without  sin;  and  if  he 
died  because  he  was  not  without  sin,  therefore  he 
could  not  have  been  God. 

The  other  two  questions  do  not  call  for  any  answer, 
because  the  Jews  do  not  accept  the  New  Testament  as 
a  divinely  inspired  book,  and  do  not  admit  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel  account  of  the  crucifixion  and  death  of 
Jesus,  and  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  In  my 
article  on  ''Christian  Attempts  to  Convert  Jews," 
published  in  a  newspaper  ^  last  year,  I  mentioned  some 
of  the  reasons  the  Jews  have  for  denying  the  truth  of 
the  New  Testament;  and  it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to 
briefly  recapitulate  the  principal  grounds  of  opinion 
there  advanced. 

I.  There  is  no  record  and  no  evidence  of  Jesus 
having  been  crucified,  and  of  the  wonderful  events 
said  to  have  attended  his  crucifixion  having  occurred, 
save  and  except  the  Gospels  themselves.     The  Jews 

*  In  The  Jewish  Times,  of  Montreal,  in  March  and  April,  1900. 


Io8     A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

who  were  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  appear  to  have 
known  nothing  about  them,  and  the  Jews  who  were  in 
Rome  and  other  cities  out  of  Palestine  appear  to  have 
heard  nothing  about  them  from  their  friends  and  corre- 
spondents in  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  since  there  is  no  Jew- 
ish account  of  them;   and  the  Romans  also  appear  to 
have  known  nothing  about  them,  since  no  heathen 
historian  of  the  day  mentions  them.     Josephus  must 
have  known  of  the  doings  and  death  of  Jesus,  if  they 
were  such  as  described  in  the  Gospels,  but  he  takes  no 
notice  of  them  at  all;  for  the  paragraph  in  his  history 
relating  to  Jesus  is  now  admitted  to  have  been  a  pious 
fraud  of  the  church  interpolated  at  a  later  time.     It 
is  also  evident,  from  the  mistakes  made  in  the  Talmud 
concerning   Jesus,   that   the   curiosity   of  the   learned 
Jews  had  never  been  interested  in  him  and  his  teachings 
until  so  long  after  his  time  that  reliable  information 
about  him  was  unobtainable.     For  these  and  other 
reasons  I  then  mentioned  we  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  not  only  have  we  no  grounds   for  belie\dng  that 
Jesus  was  put  to  death  in  the  manner  related  in  the 
Gospels,  or  that  the  Jews  had  any  hand  in  his  death, 
but  that  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  the  contrary. 
II.  It  is  well  known  that  the  lists  of  what  have 
been  considered  by  the  Christians  as  canonical  books 
have  differed    in    different    ages.     Some    books,  now 
acknowledged  by  Christians  to  be  forgeries,  were,  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries  after  Christ,  considered 
to  be  just  as  apostolic  as  those  are  deemed  that  are 
now  received,  and,  as  such,  were  publicly  read  in  the 
Christian    churches.     Gospels,    Epistles,    Acts,    and 
Revelations  almost  without  number,  published  in  the 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  109 

names  and  under  the  feigned  authority  of  Jesus  and 
his  Apostles,  abounded  in  the  early  Christian  church. 
During  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  all  the 
different  sects  of  Christians,  without  a  known  excep- 
tion, altered,  interpolated,  and  garbled  their  different 
copies  of  their  various  and  discordant  gospels  in  order 
to  adapt  them  to  their  jarring  and  whimsical  philosoph- 
ical and  theologicr.1  notions.  They  accused  each  other 
of  doing  these  things.  The  Jewish  Christians  did  not 
acknowledge  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  never  received, 
but  rejected,  the  books  of  the  present  New  Testament; 
and  they  held  in  especial  abomination  the  writings  of 
Paul,  whom  they  called  an  apostate.  The  events 
recorded  in  these  book:3  were  nowhere  so  Uttle  believed 
as  in  Judea,  among  the  people  in  whose  midst  they 
are  said  to  have  happened,  and  where  they  should,  if 
true,  have  met  with  the  most  credence.  And  in  the 
opinion  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  Christian  author- 
ities on  ecclesiastical  history  and  antiquities,  the 
present  New  Testament  is  nothing  else  than  a  collec- 
tion of  forgeries  written  by  partisans  of  the  different 
sects  in  the  early  Christian  church,  and  entitled  apos- 
toHc,  in  order  the  better  to  answer  their  various  pur- 
poses. 

III.  In  any  case,  it  is  immaterial  to  the  Jews  whether 
the  narrative  of  the  Gospels  be  historically  true  or 
not.  It  can  make  no  difference  to  the  people  of  Israel 
whether  Jesus  was  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams, 
whether  he  and  the  Apostles  performed  miracles 
and  said  and  did  all  the  things  attributed  to  them  by 
the  New  Testament,  or  not.  It  is  sufficient  for  us 
that  the  New  Testament  teaches  the  worship  of  other 


no      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

gods  than  the  One  Supreme  Being,  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel;  and  that  is  enough  to  condemn  it  and  its 
doctrines  in  the  eyes  of  all  Israel.  "If  there  arise  in 
the  midst  of  thee  a  prophet  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams, 
and  he  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  token;  and  the  sign  or 
the  token  came  to  pass,  whereof  he  spoke  unto  thee, 
saying.  Let  us  go  after  other  gods,  which  thou  dost 
not  know,  and  let  us  serve  them;  Then  shalt  thou 
not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  prophet,  or  unto 
that  dreamer  of  dreams;  for  the  Eternal  your  God 
proveth  you,  to  know  whether  ye  indeed  love  the 
Eternal  your  God  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all  your 
soul.  After  the  Eternal  your  God  shall  ye  walk,  and 
Him  shall  ye  fear,  and  His  commandments  shall  ye 
keep,  and  His  voice  shall  ye  obey,  and  Him  shall  ye 
serve,  and  unto  Him  shall  ye  cleave."  * 

From  this  summary  of  some  of  the  reasons  why  the 
Jews  do  not  accept  the  New  Testament  as  a  divinely 
inspired  book,  and  do  not  believe  the  Gospel  account 
of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  do  not 
attach  any  importance  to  them  even  if  they  did  occur 
in  the  manner  related,  my  readers  can  understand  that 
it  is  unnecessary  to  make  any  further  reply  to  the 
questions,  ''How  did  Jesus  rise  from  the  dead?  If 
He  did  not  rise,  what  became  of  His  body?" 

The  next  questions  were: — '*Is  it  not  true  that  500 
Jewish  Christians  preach  the  Gospel  throughout 
Europe  every  Lord's  Day?  Have  they  ceased  to  be 
children  of  Abraham  and  worshippers  of  the  One  God, 
because  they  worship  the  Messiah — One  in  essence 
with  the  Father?" 

*  Deut.  xii.  2-5. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  III 

My  correspondent  is  here  begging  the  question,  and 
taking  for  granted  that  which  the  Jews  strenuously 
deny;  for  they  neither  admit  that  Jesus  was  the  Mes- 
siah, nor  that  he  is  one  in  essence  with  the  Almighty. 
"Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  the  King  of  Israel,  and 
his  Redeemer,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and 
I  am  the  last;  and  beside  Me  there  is  no  god."  ^  *'I 
am  God,  and  there  is  none  else;  I  am  God,  and  there 
is  none  like  Me."^  And  that  the  Messiah  has  not 
yet  come  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  none  of  the 
prophesies  respecting  the  events  that  are  to  happen  in 
connection  with  his  advent  have  yet  been  fulfilled. 
Wars  have  not  yet  ceased;  the  sword  has  not  yet  been 
beaten  into  a  plough-share,  nor  the  spear  into  a  prun- 
ing-hook;  the  wolf  has  not  yet  taken  up  his  abode 
with  the  lamb,  nor  does  the  leopard  lie  down  with  the 
kid;  the  worship  of  idols  is  still  prevalent  among  the 
heathen  nations;  and  by  all  people  but  the  Jews 
themselves,  divine  attributes  are  still  ascribed,  and 
divine  honors  are  paid,  to  other  gods  than  the  Eternal, 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 

The  Jews  do  not  expect  to  find  in  the  Messiah,  for 
whose  speedy  coming  they  daily  supplicate  the  Al- 
mighty, a  person  entitled  to  their  worship,  which 
belongs  to  God  Alone.  The  Jewish  Scriptures  teach 
them  to  expect  in  the  Messiah  a  human  being,  a  de- 
scendant of  King  David,  one  who  will  be  no  more  of  a 
mediator  between  them  and  God  than  were  Moses  and 
the  other  prophets.  He  is  to  be  the  prophet  and 
messenger  of  God ;  the  King  whom  God  will  anoint  to 
collect  and  reign  over  the  restored  remnant  of  Israel; 

^  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  '  Ibid.  xlvi.  9. 


112      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

the  appointed  agent  of  God's  power,  to  redeem  the 
Israelites  from  their  present  state  of  dispersion,  and 
gather  them  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  and 
reassemble  them  in  the  land  of  Palestine;  but  his 
mission  is  to  be  purely  sublunary,  and  he  will  be  only 
a  mortal,  and  therefore  without  any  power  of  salvation, 
which  appertains  alone  to  the  Almighty.  But,  though 
only  a  mortal,  the  Messiah  will  not  be  an  ordinary 
mortal,  but  one  endowed  with  the  most  exalted  moral 
and  intellectual  faculties.  "On  him  shall  rest  the 
spirit  of  the  Eternal,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  under- 
standing, the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might,  the  spirit 
of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Eternal.  And  he 
shall  be  animated  by  the  fear  of  the  Eternal;  and  not 
after  the  sight  of  his  eyes  shall  he  judge,  and  not  after 
the  hearing  of  his  ears  shall  he  decide;  but  he  shall 
judge  with  righteousness  the  poor,  and  decide  with 
equity  for  the  sufiFering  ones  of  the  earth ;  and  he  shall 
smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with 
the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked.  And 
righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and 
faithfulness  the  girdle  of  his  hips."  ^  "And  he  shall 
reign  as  king,  and  prosper,  and  he  shall  execute  justice 
and  righteousness  on  the  earth.  In  his  days  shall 
Judah  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  in  safety;  and 
this  is  the  name  by  which  the  Eternal  shall  call  him,  Our 
Righteousness."^  We  have  in  these  verses  a  perfect 
description  of  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the 
expected  King  Messiah;  and  the  Jews  look  forward 
to  his  advent  with  eager  anticipation,  and  to  himself 
with  feelings  of  the  utmost  respect  and  love,  as  the 

>  Isaiah  xi.  2-5.  '  Jere.  xxiu.  5,  6. 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  I13 

chosen  agent  of  God's  gracious  promises  of  mercy  to 
the  remnant  of  His  people,  but  they  will  not  worship 
him.  Their  worship  is  due  to  the  Eternal  alone,  to  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel. 

I  have  no  means  of  determining  the  accuracy  of  my 
correspondent's  statement  regarding  the  number  of 
Jewish  Christians  who  may  be  preaching  the  Gospel 
in  Europe;  but,  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  he  is  right,  and  that  there  are  in  Europe  500 
apostate  Jews  who  have  bartered  for  a  mess  of  pot- 
tage the  glorious  birthright  belonging  to  them  as  sons 
of  Israel,  and  priests  of  the  Eternal,  and  the  witnesses 
on  earth  of  His  Unity,  that  circumstance  does  not 
estabhsh  the  truth  of  Christianity,  or  prove  the  ex- 
istence of  more  than  one  God.  "Thus  hath  said  the 
Eternal,  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the 
Lord  of  Hosts,  I  am  the  first  and  I  am  the  last,  and 
beside  Me  there  is  no  god"  ^;  and  even  if  there  were 
50,000  apostate  Jews  preaching  the  Gospel  every  day, 
all  their  preaching  could  avail  nothing  against  the 
word  of  the  Almighty. 

Those  who  to-day  are  known  to  the  Christian 
world  as  children  of  Abraham,  and  inheritors  of  the 
promises  made  to  him,  are  not  the  descendants  of  the 
apostates  from  Judaism  of  100  or  500  years  ago;  but 
they  are  those  Jews  who  have  remained  faithful  to 
their  religion  and  true  to  their  allegiance  to  the  God 
of  their  fathers.  "I,  the  Eternal,  thy  God,  am  a 
jealous  God."  ^  "I  am  the  Eternal,  that  is  My  name; 
and  My  glory  I  will  not  give  to  any  other,  nor  My 
praise  to  graven  images."  ^    A  Jew  ceases  to  be  one  the 

'  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  '  Exod.  xx.  5.  ^  Isaiah  xlii.  8. 


114     A   JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

moment  he  begins  to  worship  any  other  than  the  God 
with  whom  the  covenant  was  made  in  Horeb;  and 
when  he  breaks  that  covenant  he  is  so  utterly  cut  off 
from  his  people  that  even  the  Christian  world  ceases 
to  look  upon  him  and  his  offspring  as  children  of 
Abraham. 


XI 


The  next  question  was,  ' '  Supposing  that  you  mis- 
understand the  truth  of  Christianity,  are  we  not  bound 
to  try  our  best  to  show  you  your  mistake — if  we  can 
— in  every  fair  and  honorable  way?" 

Unfortunately  for  the  Jews,  the  methods  adopted 
by  Christians  to  show  them  their  supposed  mistake 
have  never  been  such  as  can  be  described  as  either 
fair  or  honorable.  In  the  preface  to  his  "Grounds  of 
Christianity,"  English  says:  "The  Christian  system 
is  built  upon  the  prostrate  necks  of  the  whole  Hebrew 
nation.  It  is  a  tree  which  flourished  in  a  soil  watered 
by  their  tears;  its  leaves  grew  green  in  an  atmosphere 
filled  with  their  cries  and  groans;  and  its  roots  have 
been  moistened  and  fattened  with  their  blood.  The 
ruin,  reproach,  and  sufferings  of  that  people  are  con- 
sidered by  its  advocates  as  the  most  striking  proofs  of 
the  Divine  authority  of  the  New  Testament;  and  for 
almost  eighteen  hundred  years  the  system  contained 
in  that  book  has  been  the  cause  of  miseries  and  afflic- 
tions to  that  nation,  the  most  horrible  and  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  man. 

"Now,  if  that  system  be  indeed  Divine,  all  this  may 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  II 5 

be  very  well,  and  as  it  should  be.  But  if,  perchance 
it  should  turn  out  to  be  a  mistake;  if  it  be,  in  truth, 
not  from  God,  will  not,  then,  that  system  be  justly 
chargeable  with  all  those  shocking  cruelties  which,  on 
account  of  it,  have  been  inflicted  on  that  people?" 

To  the  Jewish  mind  there  can  be  but  one  answer 
made  to  the  question  suggested  by  English;  and  our 
Christian  friends  would  do  well  to  ponder  this  question, 
and  to  ask  themselves  what  justification  they  will  be 
able  to  advance,  and  what  plea  they  can  make,  when 
Jew  and  Christian  shall  confront  each  other  before 
that  Bar  where  truth  will  prevail,  and  the  sophistries 
of  man  will  be  of  no  use. 

The  Jews  do  not  misunderstand  what  my  corres- 
pondent calls  ''the  truth  of  Christianity";  and  they 
make  no  mistake  when  they  refuse  to  believe  its  fan- 
tastic theories.  The  so-called  "truth  of  Christianity" 
consists,  fundamentally,  in  the  doctrine  that  there  are 
three  Gods,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
that  Jesus  Christ,  the  second  person  in  this  trium- 
virate, was  the  creator  of  heaven  and  earth*;  that 
besides  these  three  Gods  there  is  another  being  of  well- 
nigh  equal  power  with  them,  namely,  Satan,  or  the 
Devil,  who  is  the  God  of  Evil  and  the  inveterate  enemy 
of  mankind ;  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  became 
incarnate  and  offered  himself,  or,  rather,  that  God  the 
Father  offered  God  the  Son  as  a  sacrifice  in  order  to 
redeem  the  human  race  from  the  power  of  the  Devil; 
and  that  the  whole  of  mankind,  with  the  exception  of 
those  who  believe  in  Christ,  belong  to  the  kingdom  of 
the  Devil,  and  are  doomed  to  everlasting  punishment. 

'  John  i.  3,  10;  Colos.  i,  16. 


Il6      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

These  are  the  primary  or  essential  "truths  of  Chris- 
tianity" that  all  Christians  may  be  said  to  accept; 
beyond  these  fundamental  doctrines  each  of  the 
numerous  sects  into  which  Christians  are  divided  has 
its  own  tenets,  and  its  own  opinion  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes the  ''truth  of  Christianity,"  and  denies  the  pos- 
session of  Christian  truth  by  any  other  sect  of  Chris- 
tians, and  looks  upon  all  other  Christians  as  being  under 
the  power  of  Satan.  The  Jews  reject  these  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  Christianity,  because  belief  in 
them  is  as  impossible  to  them  as  a  fair  and  honest 
rendering  and  application  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
appear  to  be  to  our  Christian  friends. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  of  God.  To  a  person  brought  up  and 
educated  in  the  Christian  reHgion  it  may  be  possible, 
and  appears  quite  natural,  to  believe  that  God — the 
Great,  Mighty,  and  Holy  God — shut  Himself  up  in 
the  womb  of  a  woman,  and  went  through  all  the  nasti- 
ness  of  human  birth;  that  He  was  suckled,  cuffed,  and 
spanked  after  the  manner  of  other  children;  that  He 
lived  in  poverty  and  in  obscurity  during  nearly  the 
whole  of  His  career  on  earth ;  and  when  He  did  emerge 
from  that  obscurity,  and  attracted  a  little  local  atten- 
tion, that  He  was  scourged,  and  put  to  a  shameful 
death  by  a  handful  of  His  creatures.  It  may  not  be 
repugnant  to  the  feelings  and  ideas  of  a  Christian  to 
believe  these  things  of  his  Creator;  but  to  a  Jew,  who 
holds  the  Eternal  his  God  in  such  fear  and  reverence 
that  he  even  abstains  from  pronouncing  His  Holy 
Name,  the  very  idea  of  such  things,  in  connection  with 
Him,  is  most  shocking,  and  blasphemous  beyond  all 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  II7 

expression.  And  how  a  Christian  can  suppose  that 
the  Almighty  can  be  pleased,  or  feel  Himself  honored, 
by  having  such  things  believed  of  Him,  is  utterly 
incomprehensible  to  a  Jew. 

It  would  be  but  a  repetition  of  what  has  been  already 
abundantly  proved  to  show  that  the  Old  Testament 
denies  in  the  most  positive  manner  every  one  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity.  In  affirming, 
not  once  only,  but  scores  upon  scores  of  times,  that 
the  Eternal  is  the  One  Supreme  Being,  the  first  and 
the  last,  that  He  is  the  sole  Creator  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  that  beside  Him  there  is  no  god  and  no  one 
else,  the  Old  Testament  repudiates  in  the  most  em- 
phatic way  all  the  theories  of  the  Christian  religion 
that  are  based  upon  the  beUef  in  the  existence  of  three 
Gods,  and  of  a  Fourth  Being  or  Evil  Spirit,  possessed 
of  power  almost  equal  to  that  of  the  three  Gods.  If 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  contained  only  one  declaration 
of  the  Unity  of  God, — if  there  were  only  the  statement, 
"Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal 
is  One,"  ^ — this  alone  would  be  amply  sufficient  to 
refute  the  Christian  theory  of  a  triumvirate  of  Gods; 
how  much  more  completely  then  is  the  Christian 
doctrine  proved  to  be  false  when  we  take  into  consider- 
ation the  almost  numberless  repetitions  of  the  Divine 
affirmation  that  the  Eternal  is  One  Alone,  and  beside 
Him  there  is  no  god,  and  no  one  else!  If  the  Old 
Testament  had  been  written  subsequently  to  the  New, 
and  for  the  express  purpose  of  proving  the  latter  to 
be  false,  it  could  not  have  done  this  more  clearly  and 
emphatically  than  it  actually  does. 

'  Deut.  vi.  4. 


Il8      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

On  the  most  vital  and  essential  point  of  revealed 
religion, — the  Unity  of  God, — the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  flatly  contradict  each  other,  and  the  latter 
even  disproves  itself^;  and  if,  as  the  Jews  claim,  and 
Christians  are  forced  to  admit,  the  Old  Testament 
contains  a  revelation  from  God,  then  the  New  Testa- 
ment cannot  be  from  Him,  since  it  teaches  as  true  that 
which  the  Old  Testament  explicitly,  repeatedly,  and 
formally  denies.  It  is  incompatible  with  the  attributes 
of  the  Almighty  to  suppose  that  He  can  be  at  any 
time  in  error,  or  can  contradict  Himself;  and  that  He 
can  at  one  time  affirm  to  be  true  that  which  He  has  at 
other  times  expressly  and  distinctly  denied.  God 
cannot  be  the  Author  of  two  revelations,  one  of  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  other.  One  of  them  must  be 
not  from  Him,  and  false.  And  whether  our  Christian 
friends  accept  or  reject  the  Old  Testament,  they  cannot 
in  either  case  estabHsh  the  truth  of  the  New;  for  if 
they  admit  the  truth  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  they  deny  that  of  the  New;  and  if 
they  should  attempt  to  support  the  New  Testament 
at  the  expense  of  the  Old,  they  must  equally  fail  of  their 
object,  because  the  New  Testament  is  professedly 
built  upon  the  Old  as  its  foundation. 

The  next  questions  were,  ''How  do  you  account  for 
the  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  as  revealed  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures?  To  whom  was  the  Almighty  speaking 
when  He  said,  '  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image '  ?  Is 
this  explained  by  the  plural  of  majesty  simply?" 

My  correspondent  is  in  error  when  he  states  that 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  reveal  a  plurality  in  the  God- 

*  Mark  xii.  29,  32. 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 19 

head.  As  has  been  already  pointed  out,  the  word 
Godhead  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures; 
and  they  speak  only  of  One  God,  the  Eternal,  and 
declare,  over  and  over  again,  that  beside  Him  there  is 
no  god,  and  no  one  else. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  plural  forms  are  often 
used  in  the  Hebrew  language,  where  other  languages 
employ  the  singular.  Thus,  under  the  plural  form 
are  expressed  extensions  of  space  and  time,  portions 
of  space,  regions,  and  places.  The  words,  heaven, 
water ^  are  rendered  in  Hebrew  by  nouns  in  the  plural; 
Jerusalem,  apparently  in  the  dual,  is  a  noun  in  the 
plural  form;  certain  members  of  the  body,  which  are 
spaces  on  its  surface,  as  neck,  face,  are  expressed  by 
words  in  the  plural;  spaces  of  time,  as  life,  youth,  old 
age,  by  nouns  in  the  plural;  and  states  or  qualities 
that  are  permanent  or  of  long  continuance,  such 
as  perverseness,  compassion,  childlessness,  are  also 
expressed  by  nouns  in  the  plural  form.  The  word 
Teraphim,  images,  is  always  in  the  plural,  even  when 
only  one  image  is  meant.  Thus,  when  Saul  sent 
messengers  to  David's  house,  to  watch  for  and  slay 
him,  "Michal  took  an  image  (Teraphim)  and  put  it 
in  the  bed,  .  .  .  and  when  the  messengers  were 
come  in,  behold,  there  was  an  image  (Teraphim)  in 
the  bed."^ 

Words  denoting  might  and  power,  these  being 
originally  conceived  as  something  distributed  and 
manifold,  are  expressed  under  the  plural  form.  Par- 
ticularly so  is  this  the  case  with  the  word  El,  God, 
which,  whether  for  the  purpose  of  representing  the 

'  I  Sam.  xix.  13,  16. 


I20      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Divine  power  in  its  developments,  or  of  conveying  the 
idea  of  *'God  of  gods,"^  is  nearly  always  expressed  in 
the  plural  form,  Elohim,  Gods.  This  is,  essentially,  a 
plural  of  majesty;  and  although  in  the  Hebrew,  as  in 
other  languages,  the  predicate,  whether  verb  or  adjec- 
tive, conforms  regularly  to  the  subject  in  gender  and 
number,  yet  the  plural  nouns  that  have  a  singular 
signification  are  construed  with  the  singular;  and 
especially  is  this  the  case  with  the  word  Elohim,  the 
plural  of  majesty.  Take,  for  instance,  the  first  chap- 
ter in  Genesis.  '^Bereshith  hara  Elohim,^^  *'In  the 
beginning  God  created";  Elohim  is  in  the  plural,  but 
the  verb  bara,  he  created,  is  in  the  singular.  *'  Vy- 
yomer  Elohim,''  and  God  said;  the  verb  yomer,  he 
said,  is  in  the  singular.  ''And  God  saw  .  .  .  And 
God  divided  .  .  .  And  God  called  .  .  .  And  God 
made  .  .  .  And  God  set  them  .  .  .  And  God 
blessed  them";  in  all  these  cases  the  plural  noun 
Elohim,  the  plural  of  majesty,  is  construed  with  the 
verb  in  the  singular. 

The  phrase,  ''Let  us  make  man  in  our  image," 
is  usually  regarded  as  being  expressive  of  the  purpose 
of  the  Almighty  to  effect  His  will;  and,  viewed  in 
this  light,  is  merely  an  instance  of  the  use  of  the  plural 
of  majesty.  But  the  traditional  explanation  of  the 
phrase  is  that  it  means  that  God  and  the  earth  together 
made  man;  that  is,  that  the  earth  brought  man  into 
existence  by  virtue  of  the  power  vested  in  her,  in  the 
same  way  as  in  the  production  of  other  Uving  creatures, 
and  then,  that  the  Supreme  Being  endued  him  with  an 
intelligent  soul.     Hence,  in  regard  to  his  material  part, 

*  Deut.  X.  17. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  121 

the  production  of  man  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  earth 
and  the  spiritual  and  intelligent  part  of  him  to  God. 
This  explanation  is  quite  consistent  with  the  text, 
"And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life;  and  the  man  became  a  living  soul."  ^  For,  when 
God  said,  "Let  the  earth  bring  forth  living  creatures,"^ 
the  animal  part  of  man  was  also  included;  and  for 
this  reason  the  plural  form,  "Let  us  make  man,"  was 
used.  If  it  had  been  said,  "I  will  make  man,"  or, 
"Let  man  exist,"  as  it  was  said,  "Let  there  be  light," 
it  might  have  been  inferred  that  the  earth  did  not 
produce  him,  as  a  living  creature,  consisting  of  matter, 
but  that  he  was  entirely  spiritual.  And  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  had  been  said,  "Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  man,"  it  would  have  afforded  ample  scope  for 
asserting  the  materiality  of  man  in  the  same  manner 
as  that  of  all  other  Hving  creatures  which  the  earth 
produced.  But,  by  using  the  expression,  "Let  us 
make  man,"  a  true  idea  of  the  matter  is  conveyed, 
namely,  that  God  and  the  earth  together  made  man, 
as  a  compound  being;  his  material  part  proceeding 
from  the  earth,  and  his  spiritual  part  directly  from  the 
Almighty.  So  that  we  may  justly  say  that  man  is  a 
compound  creature,  formed  of  flesh  and  spirit,  partak- 
ing of  heaven  and  earth,  and  consequently  alUed  to 
both  worlds. 

'  Gen.  ii.  7.  '  Ibid.  i.  24. 


122      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 


XII 


We  find  the  plural  word  Elohinty  gods,  used  with 
reference  to  Moses,  yet  none  of  our  Christian  friends 
will  pretend  that  Moses  was  a  plurality.  ''And  the 
anger  of  the  Eternal  was  kindled  against  Moses,  and 
He  said,  Is  there  not  Aaron,  thy  brother,  the  Levite? 
.  .  .  And  he  shall  speak  for  thee  unto  the  people; 
and  he  shall  be,  yea,  he  shall  be  to  thee  as  a  mouth, 
and  thou  shall  be  to  him  as  a  god  (in  the  Hebrew  text 
it  is  Elohim,  gods)."^  "And  the  Eternal  said  unto 
Moses,  See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  (Hterally,  Elohim, 
gods)  to  Pharaoh ;  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy 
prophet."^  The  use  of  the  plural  word  Elohim,  as  a 
plural  of  majesty,  can  no  more  be  made  to  mean,  when 
applied  to  the  Almighty,  that  He  is  a  pluraHty,  than 
it  can,  when  applied  to  Moses,  be  held  to  signify  that 
the  latter  was  a  plurality. 

There  is  either  One  God,  or  more  than  one.  If  there 
be  more  than  one,  if  there  be  a  plurality  of  Gods,  then 
they  should  always  be  spoken  of  in  the  plural;  and 
any  use  of  the  singular  with  reference  to  them  would 
be  misleading.  There  is  a  common  enough  form  of 
expression,  the  "plural  of  majesty,"  by  which  one  can 
speak  and  be  spoken  of  in  the  plural,  that  deceives  no 
one;  but  there  is  no  recognized  form  of  expression 
that  can  justify  the  use  of  words  in  the  singular  form 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  the  idea  of  a  plurality. 
If  there  be  more  than  one  God,  then  it  must  be  con- 

*  Exod.  iv.  14,  16.  "  Ibid.  vii.  i. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  123 

fessed  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  book  that  has  been 
written  with  intent  to  deceive;  and  this  is  a  conclusion 
which  no  believer  in  its  divine  authority,  whether  Jew 
or  non- Jew,  will  ever  admit.  This  consideration  alone 
is  fatal  to  the  proposition  that  there  is  a  plurality  of 
Gods. 

Again,  if  we  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
there  is  more  than  one  God;  then  how  many  of  them 
are  there  ?  Two  ?  Three  ?  Or  countless  milHons  of  them  ? 
If  we  admit  the  proposition  that  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures reveal  the  existence  of  a  plurality  of  Gods,  what 
man  can  undertake  to  say  how  many,  or  how  few,  of 
them  there  are?  The  Christian  limitation  of  their 
number  to  three  is  merely  an  adoption  by  Christians 
of  the  theories  and  speculations  of  a  heathen  philoso- 
pher; it  is  not  founded  on  any  declaration  contained 
in  the  Jewish  Scriptures;  and  even  Christians  have 
never  claimed  for  the  theology  of  Plato  the  authority 
of  a  divine  revelation.  If,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
we  assume  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  reveal  the 
existence  of  a  pluraUty  of  Gods,  there  is  nothing  in 
tiiem  that  can  justify  the  restriction  of  their  number 
to  three.  The  Christian  system  of  three  Gods  is  a 
purely  Platonic  proposition. 

The  Old  Testament  maintains  that  there  is  but  One 
Sole  God;  and  that  beside  Him  there  is  no  god. 
''Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Eternal,  our  God,  the  Eternal, 
is  One."  ^  *'Sce  now  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and  there 
is  no  god  with  Me."  ^  ''Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal, 
the  King  of  Israel  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Eternal 
of  Hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last;   and  beside 

'  Dcut.  vi,  4,  "  Ibid,  xxxii.  39. 


124      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Me  there  is  no  god."  ^  *'I  am  the  Eternal,  and  there 
is  none  else ;  beside  Me  there  is  no  god."  ^  ''  I  am  God, 
and  there  is  no  one  else;  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none 
like  Me."  ^  It  is  only  by  perverting,  and  misapplying, 
and  falsely  rendering  the  Jewish  Scriptures  that  Chris- 
tians are  able  to  persuade  themselves  that  their  Platonic 
theory  of  a  triumvirate  of  Gods  is  based  upon  the 
teachings  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  first  revelation  of  Himself  given  by  God  was 
made  when  He  appeared  to  Abraham.  ''And  when 
Abram  was  ninety  and  nine  years  old,  the  Eternal 
appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  the 
Almighty  God  (El-Shaddai);  walk  before  me,  and  be 
thou  perfect."^  Here,  the  word  El,  God,  is  in  the 
singular,  and  the  sentence  is  constructed  in  the  singular; 
so  that  there  is  neither  a  pluraHty  nor  a  triumvirate 
of  Gods  to  be  found  in  this  revelation.  To  the  Hebrew 
patriarchs,  then,  the  Eternal  was  revealed  as  a  Unity, 
as  One  Sole  God,  the  Almighty. 

The  next  revelation  of  the  Almighty's  being  and 
quality  was  made  to  Moses.  "And  Moses  said  unto 
God,  Behold,  I  come  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
say  unto  them.  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me 
unto  you;  and  they  say  to  me,  What  is  His  name? 
What  shall  I  say  unto  them?  And  God  said  unto 
Moses,  I  Will  Be  that  I  Will  Be  (Eyeh  asher  Eyeh) ; 
and  He  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  cliildren  of 
Israel,  I  Will  Be  {Eyeh)  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  '  The 
word  Eyeh  is  the  first  person,  singular,  future  tense, 
of  the  verb  "to  be" ;  so,  here  again,  the  Eternal  revealed 

1  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  "^  Ibid.  xlv.  5.  ^  Ibid.  xlvi.  9. 

^  Gen.  xvii.  1.  ^  Exod.  iii.  13,  14. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  12$ 

Himself  as  a  Unity;  and  to  Moses,  then,  He  was 
known  as  One  God,  as  the  Being  who  will  ever  be, 
the  Eternal. 

''And  God  (Elohim,  the  plural  of  majesty)  spoke 
unto  Moses,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Eternal.  And 
I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob, 
by  the  name  of  El-Shaddai  (God  Almighty),  but  by 
My  name  the  Eternal  I  was  not  known  to  them.  And 
I  did  also  establish  My  covenant  with  them,  to  give 
unto  them  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  land  of  their  pil- 
grimage, wherein  they  sojourned.  And  I  have  also 
heard  the  groaning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  whom 
the  Egyptians  compel  to  labor;  and  I  have  remembered 
My  covenant.  Therefore  say  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  I  am  the  Eternal,  and  I  will  bring  you  out 
from  under  the  burdens  of  the  Egyptians,  and  I  will 
redeem  you  with  an  outstretched  arm,  and  with  great 
judgments:  And  I  will  take  you  to  Me  for  a  people, 
and  I  will  be  to  you  a  God  (Elohim  again,  the  plural 
of  majesty) ;  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Eternal 
your  God  (plural  again),  who  bringeth  you  out  from 
under  the  burdens  of  the  Egyptians.  And  I  will 
bring  you  into  the  land,  concerning  which  I  did  lift  up 
My  hand  to  give  it  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob ; 
and  I  will  give  it  you  for  a  heritage :  I  am  the  Eternal."* 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  occurrence  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  to  find  the  singular  form  El,  and  the  plural 
form  Elohim,  used  in  the  same  passages;  and  any  one 
who  would  argue  from  thence  the  existence  of  an  un- 
limited plurality  in  Unity,  or  of  a  trinity  or  a  quartette, 
or  of  any  other  determinate  number  of  gods  in  Unity, 

'  Exod.  vi.  2-8. 


126      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

would  be  simply  perverting  the  meaning  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  which  maintain  the  existence  of  One  God, 
the  Eternal,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  gods.  "For 
the  Eternal  thy  God  (plural)  is  a  consuming  fire, 
even  a  watchful  God  (singular)."*  " For  a  merciful 
God  (singular)  is  the  Eternal  thy  God  (plural)."  ^ 
"For  I  the  Eternal  thy  God  (plural)  am  a  jealous  God 
(singular)."  ^  "  For  the  Eternal  thy  God  (plural)  is  in 
the  midst  of  thee,  a  mighty  and  terrible  God  (sin- 
gular)."" ''Know  then  that  the  Eternal  thy  God 
(plural)  He  is  the  God  (ha-Elohim),  the  faithful  God 
(ha-El).^^^  In  Hebrew,  as  in  other  languages,  the 
definite  article,  employed  with  a  noun,  limits  its  appli- 
cation, and  when  used  with  an  appellative — that  is, 
applied  by  way  of  eminence  to  a  particular  person — 
becomes  a  kind  of  proper  name.  The  plural  expres- 
sion ha-Elohim  conveys  the  same  meaning  as  the 
singular  ha-El,  namely,  that  of  the  only,  the  true  God; 
and  both  expressions  mean  that  the  Eternal  is  the  One 
Being  who  is  in  truth  God  the  Creator,  and  that  all 
other  deities  are  false,  powerless,  and  imaginary  beings, 
and  therefore  not  God. 

None  of  our  Christian  friends  will  pretend  that  the 
Jews  of  the  present  day  are  believers  in  a  plurality  of 
Gods,  and  yet  the  plural  form  Elohim  is  constantly 
used  in  their  prayer-books;  and  in  their  prayer-books, 
as  in  their  Scriptures,  we  find  the  singular  El  and  the 
plural  Elohim  used  in  the  same  passages.  ''Blessed 
art  Thou,  O  Lord  our  God  (plural),  and  God  (plural) 
of  our  fathers ;  God  (plural)  of  Abraham,  God  (plural) 

*  Deut.  iv.  24.  '  Ibid,  iv.  31.  ^  Ibid.  v.  9. 

*  Ibid.  vii.  21.  *  Ibid.  vii.  9. 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  12  7 

of  Isaac,  and  God  (plural)  of  Jacob;  the  God  (ha-El), 
great,  mighty,  and  tremendous,  the  most  high  God 
(singular)!"  "Remember  us  unto  life,  O  God  (singu- 
lar), the  King,  who  delightest  in  life.  O  write  us  in 
the  Book  of  Life,  for  Thy  own  sake,  O  God  (Elohim) 
of  life,  who  art  the  living  God  (£/)."  The  plural 
Elohim  is  simply  a  plural  of  majesty;  and  Christians 
may  as  well  argue  that  the  use  of  the  plural  forms 
''you  are,"  and  "you  have,"  in  the  English  language, 
mean,  when  applied  to  the  individual  John  Smith,  that 
he  must  be  a  plurality,  as  that  the  plural  Elohim 
signifies,  when  applied  to  the  Almighty,  that  He  is  a 
plurality.  The  singular  signification  of  Elohim  is 
moreover  shown  by  its  being  construed  with  the  verb 
or  other  predicate  in  the  singular. 

The  next  question  was.  Is  Deuteronomy  vi.  4 
possibly  rendered,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  is  our 
Gods,  the  Lord  is  united^ ^? 

The  Hebrew  text  reads,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Eternal, 
our  God  (ElohenUf  the  plural  of  majesty),  the  Eternal 
(is)  One  {Echad)r  The  cardinal  number  "One"  is 
expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  word  "echad";  and  the 
question  asked  by  my  correspondent  shows  to  what 
straits  our  Christian  friends  are  put  in  their  efforts  to 
find  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  even  the  faintest  shadow 
of  support  for  their  Platonic  theory  of  a  triumvirate 
of  Gods. 

It  is  often  difficult  to  answer  seriously,  and  without 
banter,  the  questions  asked  by  our  Christian  friends; 
so  childish  and  inconsequent  are  they.  We  have,  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  almost  countless  repetitions  of 
the  declarations  of  the  Unity  of  God;    we  are  told, 


128      A   JEWISH    REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

times  almost  without  number,  that  the  Eternal  is  the 
Only  God,  and  that  there  is  none  like  Him,  that  beside 
Him  there  is  no  god,  and  no  one  else ;  we  have  Moses 
declaring  to  the  people  of  Israel,  "Unto  thee  it  was 
shown,  that  thou  mightest  know,  that  the  Eternal  He 
(is)  the  God  {ha-Elohim,  that  is,  the  only,  the  true  God); 
there  is  none  else  beside  Him";^  we  have  him  repeat- 
ing, "Know  therefore  this  day,  and  reflect  in  thy 
heart,  that  the  Eternal  He  (is)  the  God  (ha-Elohim) 
in  the  heavens  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath; 
there  is  none  else"^;  we  have  the  Almighty  declaring, 
through  Moses,  "See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and 
there  is  no  God  with  Me"  ;^  and  when  we  have  Moses 
proclaiming  the  same  truth  of  the  Unity  of  God  in  the 
words,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Eternal,  our  God,  the 
Eternal  is  One,"  the  question  is  asked  by  a  learned 
Christian  minister  whether  this  is  not  intended  to  mean 
that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one,  and  that  they  are 
associated  together. 

The  verse  in  question  cannot  be  so  rendered.  "Thus 
hath  said  the  Eternal,  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his 
Redeemer,  the  Eternal  of  Hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and 
I  am  the  last;  and  beside  Me  there  is  no  god."''  "I 
am  the  Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else ;  beside  Me  there 
is  no  god."'*  There  is  no  plurality,  no  triumvirate, 
no  association  of  Gods;  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  incul- 
cate the  absolute  Unity  of  God;  and  they  teach  us, 
in  the  plainest  and  most  emphatic  language  in  which 
the  sublime  truth  can  be  expressed,  that  the  Eternal 
is  the  One  Supreme  Being,  the  Only  God  and  the 

*  Deut.  iv.  35.  '  Ibid.  iv.  39.  '  Ibid,  xxxii.  39. 

*  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  '  Ibid.  xlv.  5. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 29 

Only  Saviour,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  that  He 
Alone  is  endued  with  infinite  perfection,  power,  wis- 
dom, knowledge,  and  goodness. 

My  correspondent  can  find  an  answer  to  his  question 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  related  there  that  "one 
of  the  scribes  came,  and  having  heard  them  reasoning 
together,  and  perceiving  that  he  (Jesus)  had  answered 
them  well,  asked  him.  Which  is  the  first  command- 
ment of  all?  And  Jesus  answered  him.  The  first  of 
all  the  commandments  is,  Hear,  O  Israel;  The  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord;  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength: 
this  is  the  first  commandment.  .  .  .  And  the  scribe 
said  unto  him.  Well,  Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth; 
for  there  is  One  God;  and  there  is  none  other  but  He. 
.  .  .  And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly, 
he  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God." ' 

My  correspondent  can  ask  himself  whether  this 
passage  in  the  New  Testament  can  be  rendered,  "Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  is  our  Gods,  the  Lord  is  united"; 
and,  as  a  believer  in  the  word  of  Jesus  and  in  the  truth 
of  the  New  Testament,  he  will  undoubtedly  find  him- 
self compelled  to  answer  that  he  is  bound  to  accept 
the  evidence  of  the  one  and  the  testimony  of  the  other 
as  satisfactory  and  conclusive  proof  that  there  is  but 
one  God,  and  none  other  but  Him. 

*  Mark  xii.  28-30,  32,  34. 


130      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 


XIII 

The  last  questions  were,  ''How  do  you  account  for 
the  wonderful  change  in  the  Pharisee  Saul  of  Tarsus 
into  Paul  the  Missionary  of  Jesus  Christ?  How  do 
you  account  for  the  spread  of  Christianity  ?  How  was 
the  Apostle  Paul  able  to  foretell  that  Israel  as  a  nation 
would  never  accept  Christ  until  His  future  return  as 
the  Messiah  in  glory?" 

These  questions,  like  several  of  the  previous  ones, 
are  but  side-issues;  and  they  are  only  deser\dng  of 
attention  because  Christians  attach  a  great  deal  of 
importance  to  the  supposed  miraculous  conversion 
of  Paul,  and  to  the  spread  of  their  rehgion,  as  leading 
arguments  in  favor  of  its  truth.  I  might  ask  my 
correspondent  how  he  accounts  for  the  thousands  of 
bright  intellects  who,  born  and  brought  up  as  Chris- 
tians, have  found  themselves  unable  to  accept  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  have  lapsed  into  infi- 
deHty  ?  how  he  accounts  for  the  hundreds  of  illustrious 
men  who  have  abandoned  Protestantism  in  order  to 
join  the  church  of  Rome?  and  how  he  accounts  for 
the  spread  of  Mahometanism,  which  made  more 
progress  in  a  hundred  years  than  Christianity  did  in 
a  thousand?  I  might  ask  him  these  and  many  more 
questions  that  it  would  be  interesting  to  have  him 
answer;  but  they  would  be  no  more  material  to  the 
points  at  issue  between  the  Jew  and  the  Christian 
than  are  his  questions.  The  conversion  of  Paul  is 
no  more  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  than  is  the 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  131 

apostasy  of  any  other  Jew;  and  the  conversion  of  any 
number  of  Jews  to  Christianity  is  no  more  evidence 
of  its  truth  than  were  the  frequent  lapses  of  the  Israelites 
into  idolatry  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  the  gods  whom 
their  heathen  neighbors  worshipped. 

It  did  not  require  any  special  degree  of  discernment 
on  the  part  of  Paul  to  predict  that  nothing  less  than 
the  return  of  Christ  as  the  Messiah  in  glory  would  be 
required  to  make  the  Jews  believe  in  either  his  Mes- 
siahship  or  divinity.  Any  Jew  with  any  knowledge 
of  his  rehgion  and  people  could  easily  prophesy  the 
same  thing. 

According  to  the  New  Testament,  Paul  was  con- 
verted to  Christianity  by  a  splendid  apparition  of  Jesus, 
who  struck  him  to  the  ground  by  the  glory  of  his 
appearance;  but  by  the  Nazarene  Christians  his  con- 
version was  ascribed  to  a  different  cause.  They  said 
that,  being  a  man  of  ability  and  of  some  note,  he 
demanded  the  daughter  of  the  High  Priest  in  marriage, 
and,  being  refused,  that  his  violent  and  revengeful 
temper  drove  him  to  join  their  sect.  However  this 
may  be,  and  whatever  the  motive  of  his  apostasy,  it  is 
evident  from  the  New  Testament  that  he  was  regarded 
by  the  Jewish  Christians  with  suspicion,  and  that  he 
taught  a  doctrine  different  to  that  promulgated  by  the 
other  Apostles,  the  companions  of  Jesus. 

The  accounts  of  the  conversion  of  Paul,  and  of  his 
life  and  movements  afterwards,  that  are  given  in  the 
New  Testament,  arc  full  of  discrepancies  and  contra- 
dictions that  are  fatal  to  the  authenticity  of  the  nar- 
rative and  to  the  character  of  the  book  as  an  inspired 
writing. 


132      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

It  appears  from  the  New  Testament  that  Paul  had 
been  prominent  and  active  in  the  persecution  of  the 
Christians  at  Jerusalem,  entering  into  every  house, 
and  dragging  men  and  women  to  prison/  Then,  still 
breathing  out  threatenings  and  slaughter  against  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  he  applied  to  the  High  Priest  for 
letters  authorizing  him  to  go  to  Damascus,  and  to 
bring  any  Christian  men  and  women  whom  he  might 
find  there  bound  to  Jerusalem.^  What  jurisdiction 
the  High  Priest  at  Jerusalem  had  over  Christians  at 
Damascus  is  not  explained;  the  writers  and  compilers 
of  the  New  Testament  may  perhaps  have  thought 
that  the  High  Priest  wielded  over  the  people  of  the 
East  the  same  authority  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  exer- 
cised over  the  nations  of  the  West  in  the  days  of  the 
Inquisition;  but  they  might  as  well  have  made  Paul 
obtain  letters  from  the  High  Priest  empowering  him 
to  arrest  and  bring  the  Christian  residents  of  Antioch, 
Alexandria,  and  Rome  as  prisoners  to  Jerusalem  for 
punishment  and  death,  as  they  did  for  the  Christians 
of  Damascus.  Even  in  Jerusalem  itself  the  High 
Priest  was  powerless  to  judge  and  condemn;  the 
offender  had  to  be  brought  before  the  representative 
of  Roman  authority  for  trial  and  punishment.  It 
was  before  the  tribunal  of  Pilate  that  Jesus  was  led, 
and  Paul  was  sent  before  that  of  Felix;  and  even  the 
New  Testament  shows  how  scant  was  the  considera- 
tion that  the  Roman  conquerors  at  any  time  paid  to 
complaints  based  on  violations  of  the  rehgious  laws, 
practices  and  sentiments  of  the  Jews,  unless  some 
danger  to  Roman  power  were  also  apparent. 

^  Acts  xxii.  4.  '  Ibid.,  ix.  i,  2. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 33 

While  Paul  was  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  and  when 
near  that  city,  suddenly,  about  noon,  there  shone 
round  about  him  and  his  travelhng  companions  a  hght 
from  heaven,  above  the  brightness  of  the  sun;  and 
they  all  fell  to  the  ground,  and  he  heard  the  voice  of 
Jesus  speaking  to  him/ 

The  New  Testament  gives  conflicting  accounts  of 
what  then  happened.  Thus,  we  are  told  in  one  chapter 
that  the  men  who  were  journeying  with  Paul  "stood 
speechless,  hearing  a  voice,  but  seeing  no  man";^ 
and  in  another,  that  they  "saw  indeed  the  light,  and 
were  afraid,  but  they  heard  not  the  voice  oj  him  that 
spake'' ^  to  Paul.  In  one  chapter  it  is  related  that 
when  Paul  asked  Jesus  what  he  should  do,  Jesus 
said  to  him,  "Arise,  and  go  into  Damascus;  and 
there  it  shall  be  told  to  thee  of  all  things  which  are 
appointed  for  thee  to  do."  ^  This  is  corroborated  by 
the  account  given  in  another  chapter;'  but,  according 
to  a  third  account,  Paul  received  his  instructions  from 
Jesus  at  the  time  and  place  of  his  apparition.  "And 
I  said.  Who  art  thou,  Lord?  And  he  said,  I  am  Jesus, 
whom  thou  persecutest.  But  arise,  and  stand  upon 
thy  feet ;  for  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose, 
to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness  both  of  these 
things  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those  things  in 
the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee;  Delivering  thee 
from  the  people,  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom 
now  I  send  thee.  To  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them 
from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins, 

>  Acts  xxii.  6;  xxvi,  13,  14.         ^  Ibid.,  ix.  7.         ^  Ibid.,  xxii.  9. 
*  Ibid.,  xxii.  10.  '  Ibid.,  ix.  6. 


134     A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

and  inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by 
faith  that  is  in  me."  ^ 

Paul  is  said  to  have  been  rendered  sightless  by  the 
glory  of  the  Hght,  ^  but  the  men  who  were  with  him  do 
not  appear  to  have  been  affected  by  it  in  the  same 
way,  for  he  was  led  by  them  to  Damascus,  to  the  house 
of  one  Judas,  where  he  remained  for  three  days  without 
sight,  and  did  neither  eat  nor  drink.  Ananias,  a 
Christian  disciple  at  Damascus,  was  instructed  by 
Jesus,  in  a  vision,  to  go  to  the  house  of  Judas,  and 
restore  his  sight  to  Paul.  Upon  Ananias  putting  his 
hands  upon  Paul,  and  addressing  him,  "  immediately 
there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales;  and  he 
received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized. 
And  when  he  had  received  meat,  he  was  strengthened. 
Then  (that  is,  upon  that  very  occasion)  was  Saul 
certain  days  with  the  disciples  which  were  in  Damas- 
cus. And  straightway  (that  is,  without  any  delay)  he 
preached  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  that  he  is  the  Son 
of  God." ' 

We  can  only  conclude  from  this  account  of  his 
conversion  that  Paul,  immediately  after  his  sight  was 
restored,  and  he  was  baptized,  began  to  preach 
Christianity  at  Damascus.  And  the  chapter  from 
which  the  last  quotation  has  been  taken  goes  on  to 
relate  that  all  those  who  heard  him  ''were  amazed  and 
said:  Is  not  this  he  that  destroyed  them  which  called 
on  this  name  in  Jerusalem,  and  came  hither  for  that 
intent,  that  he  might  bring  them  bound  unto  the  chief 
priests?  But  Saul  increased  the  more  in  strength, 
and  confounded  the  Jews  which  dwelt  in  Damascus,  prov- 

'  Acts  xxvi.  15-18.         ^  Ibid.,  ix.  8;  xxii.  11.        ^  Ibid.,  ix.  9-20. 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 35 

ing  that  this  is  very  Christ.  And  after  that  many  days 
were  fulfilled,  the  Jews  took  counsel  to  kill  him;  but 
their  laying  await  was  known  of  Saul.  And  they 
watched  the  gates  day  and  night  to  kill  him.  Then 
the  disciples  took  him  by  night,  and  let  him  down  by 
the  wall  in  a  basket.  And  when  Saul  was  come  to 
Jerusalem,  he  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples; 
but  they  were  all  afraid  of  him,  and  believed  not  that 
he  was  a  disciple.  But  Barnabas  took  him  and 
brought  him  to  the  apostles,  and  declared  unto  them 
how  he  had  seen  the  Lord  in  the  way,  and  that  he 
had  spoken  to  him,  and  how  he  had  preached  boldly 
at  Damascus  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  And  he  was  with 
them  coming  in  and  going  out  at  Jerusalem.  And  he 
spake  boldly  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
disputed  against  the  Grecians ;  but  they  went  about  to 
slay  him.  Which  when  the  brethren  knew,  they 
brought  him  down  to  Cesarea,  and  sent  him  forth  to 
Tarsus.  Then  had  the  churches  rest  throughout  all 
Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified; 
and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  comfort 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multiplied."  ^ 

Nothing  could  be  plainer,  from  the  foregoing  account, 
than  that  Paul,  immediately  after  his  conversion, 
began  preaching  at  Damascus,  and  when,  after  many 
days  there,  his  life  was  threatened,  that  he  fled  for 
refuge  to  Jerusalem,  and  preached  boldly  in  that 
city,  coming  in  and  going  out  with  the  other  disciples, 
until,  by  reason  of  his  disputes,  not  with  the  Jews, 
but  with  the  Grecians,  he  was  compelled  to  fly  from 
that  place  also.  And  then  comes  the  noteworthy 
'  Acts  ix.  21-31. 


136      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Statement  that  after  the  other  disciples  had  sent  him 
away,  out  of  Palestine,  the  Christian  churches  in  that 
country  had  rest,  and  were  edified,  and  were  multi- 
plied. Paul  was  therefore  clearly  the  disturbing 
element  in  the  Christian  community;  they  evidently 
got  on  much  better  without  him  than  with  him;  and 
since,  after  they  sent  him  away,  the  churches  had  rest, 
we  must  conclude  that  the  only  persecution  they 
suffered  was  that  which  they  endured  at  his  hands. 

In  order,  however,  to  make  the  narrative  we  are 
noticing  at  all  intelligible,  we  are  obliged  to  suppose 
that  there  was  a  fierce  persecution  by  the  Jews  of  the 
Christians  at  Jerusalem;  that  Paul  had  been  the 
savage  and  relentless  agent  in  it  that  he  is  represented 
in  the  New  Testament  to  have  been;  and  that  the 
Jewish  High  Priest  had,  what  he  did  not  have,  namely, 
jurisdiction  over  the  Christians  at  Damascus.  .Assum- 
ing all  these  pretended  facts  to  be  true,  then  we  are 
enabled  to  understand  how  it  may  have  happened  that 
the  reports  of  the  imaginary  persecution  at  Jerusalem 
should  have  reached  the  Christians  at  Damascus,  and 
that  they  should  have  received  warnings  from  their 
brethren  at  Jerusalem  of  Paul's  supposed  mission  to 
Damascus,  and  of  the  object  of  his  coming,  so  that, 
when  they  heard  him  preaching  Jesus,  they  were 
astonished,  and  asked  one  another  the  question  men- 
tioned. We  can  also  understand  how,  after  the  return 
of  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  the  Christian  disciples  at  the 
latter  city,  who  knew  him  as  their  cruel  persecutor, 
should  have  been  afraid  of  him,  and  have  refused  to 
receive  him  as  one  of  themselves,  until  he  was  vouched 
for  by  Barnabas;  provided,  of  course,  that  the  duration 


SOME    QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 37 

of  his  stay  at  Damascus  had  not  been  long  enough  to 
have  enabled  the  reports  of  his  conversion  and  bold 
preaching  at  that  place  to  have  preceded  him  and 
reached  the  ears  of  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  The 
chapter  in  the  New  Testament  from  which  the  pre- 
ceding quotations  have  been  taken  states  that  he  was 
"certain  days"  with  the  disciples  at  Damascus,  and 
then,  after  "many  days"  were  fulfilled,  that  the  Jews 
at  Damascus  sought  to  kill  him,  and  he  made  his 
escape  from  there  and  returned  to  Jerusalem.  If  he 
were  "many  days"  at  Damascus,  say  twelve  months, 
or  even  six  months,  "preaching  boldly  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,"  then  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  Chris- 
tians at  Jerusalem  should  not  have  become  fully  advised 
of  his  conversion;  and,  instead  of  being  afraid  of  him, 
and  refusing  to  believe  that  he  had  become  a  disciple, 
they  should  have  been  eager  to  receive  him  as  one  of 
the  champions  of  their  faith.  We  shall  presently  find 
that  he  was  no  less  than  three  years  at  Damascus;  so 
that  the  New  Testament  draws  heavily  upon  the 
credulity  of  its  readers  in  this  respect. 

In  other  ways,  again,  the  narrative  is  conflicting  and 
unintelHgible.  For  instance:  unless  the  alleged  per- 
secution of  the  Christians  by  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem 
were  of  the  mildest  character,  or  wholly  imaginary, 
we  are  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  it  should  happen 
that  Paul,  fleeing  for  his  life  from  the  Jews  at  Damas- 
cus, should  go  to  Jerusalem,  of  all  places,  for  safety. 
One  would  suppose  that  if  Jerusalem  were  the  hot-bed 
of  persecution  it  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament 
to  have  been,  it  would  be  the  very  last  place  in  which 
he  would  seek  refuge  from  Jewish  wrath.     It  would 


138      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

be  the  very  place  to  which  the  Jews  of  Damascus 
would  endeavor  to  send  him  for  punishment.  But  not 
only  did  Paul  go  to  Jerusalem,  as  to  an  asylum  or 
sanctuary,  for  security;  but,  after  he  became  known 
there  as  a  convert  to  Christianity,  he  went  about  freely, 
and  preached  boldly  in  the  name  of  Jesus;  and  his 
disputes  were,  not  with  the  Jews,  but  with  the  Grecians ; 
and  it  was  these  Gentiles,  and  not  the  Jews,  who 
went  about  to  slay  him.  And,  to  cap  the  climax,  we 
are  told  that  when  the  other  Christian  disciples  sent 
him  out  of  the  country,  then  the  Christian  churches 
throughout  Palestine  had  rest,  and  were  edified,  and 
were  multiplied.  We  thus  see  that  the  narrative  in 
question  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  tales  of 
the  alleged  persecution  of  the  Christians  by  the  Jews; 
like  nearly  everything  else  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
cannot  bear  the  slightest  criticism;  and  there  is  no 
verisimilitude  or  appearance  of  truth  about  it. 


XIV 


By  the  narrative  we  noticed  in  the  last  number  we 
are  clearly  informed  that  Paul,  immediately  after  his 
conversion  and  baptism,  began  preaching  at  Damascus, 
and,  when  his  life  was  threatened  there,  that  he  fled 
to  Jerusalem,  and  preached  boldly  in  that  city  until, 
by  reason  of  his  disputes  with  the  Grecians,  the  Chris- 
tian brethren  at  Jerusalem  brought  him  to  Cesarea, 
and  sent  him  to  Tarsus.  It  is  interesting  to  compare 
this  account  with  the  other  narratives  in  the  New 
Testament  concerning  him. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 39 

In  one  of  these  Paul  is  made  to  relate  the  story  of 
his  conversion  to  King  Agrippa.  After  reciting  to 
the  King  the  instructions  given  him  by  Jesus  at  the 
time  of  his  apparition,  quoted  in  the  last  number,  he 
continues  thus: — "Whereupon,  O  King  Agrippa,  I 
was  not  disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision;  But 
shewed  first  unto  them  of  Damascus,  and  at  Jerusalem, 
and  throughout  all  the  coasts  of  Judea,  and  then  to  the 
Gentiles,  that  they  should  repent  and  turn  to  God,  and 
do  works  meet  for  repentance."  ^  Here,  again,  we  have 
the  statement  that  Paul  rendered  an  immediate  obedi- 
ence to  the  commands  of  Jesus,  and  entered  at  once 
upon  the  performance  of  his  mission,  and  preached 
first  at  Damascus,  and  then  at  Jerusalem.  So  far, 
this  agrees  with  the  first  narrative,  but  then  proceeds 
to  differ  from  it  in  this  respect:  that  while,  according 
to  the  first,  the  Christian  disciples  at  Jerusalem  brought 
Paul  to  Cesarea,  and  sent  him  out  of  Palestine,  to 
Tarsus,  in  Cilicia;  we  are,  in  this  second  account, 
told  that  Paul,  after  leaving  Jerusalem,  remained  in 
Judea,  and  preached  throughout  all  the  coasts  of 
Judea,  before  going  forth  to  the  Gentiles.  The  two 
accounts  are  therefore  conflicting  in  this  respect. 

Let  us  try  a  third  account.  "And  one  Ananias 
.  .  .  came  .  .  .  and  said  unto  me.  Brother  Saul, 
receive  thy  sight.  And  the  same  hour  I  looked  up 
upon  him.  And  he  said.  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath 
chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldest  know  His  will,  and 
see  that  Just  One,  and  shouldest  hear  the  voice  of  his 
mouth.  For  thou  shalt  be  his  witness  unto  all  men  of 
what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard.     And  now  why  tarri- 

'  Acts  xxvi.  19,  20. 


I40      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

est  thou?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins,  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  it 
came  to  pass,  that,  when  I  was  come  again  to  Jerusa- 
lem, even  while  I  prayed  in  the  Temple,  I  was  in  a 
trance;  And  saw  him  (Jesus)  saying  unto  me,  Make 
haste,  and  get  thee  quickly  out  of  Jerusalem;  for 
they  will  not  receive  thy  testimony  concerning  me. 
.  .  .  And  he  said  unto  me.  Depart;  for  I  will  send 
thee  far  hence  unto  the  Gentiles."  ^  This  third  account 
differs  from  the  first  two,  since  there  is  no  mention  in 
it  of  Paul  having  preached  the  new  religion  at  Damas- 
cus before  returning  to  Jerusalem;  but  he  appears 
from  it  to  have  made  his  way  back  to  the  latter  city 
immediately  after  having  received  his  instructions 
from  Ananias.  At  Jerusalem  he  must  have  preached 
Jesus,  since  the  people  there  refused  to  receive  his 
testimony  concerning  him:  on  which  account  he  was, 
while  in  a  trance,  told  by  Jesus  to  get  quickly  out  of 
Jerusalem,  and  to  go  far  away  unto  the  Gentiles.  It 
is  singular  that  the  other  accounts  make  no  mention 
of  what  must  have  been  to  all  Christians,  as  well  as  to 
Paul  himself,  an  event  of  the  most  transcendent  im- 
portance, namely,  the  appearance  of  their  Lord  Jesus 
to  him  in  the  Temple;  and  their  silence  about  it,  if 
they  believed  it,  is  not  explainable.  Nor  does  Paul 
appear  to  have  been  over-zealous  in  obeying  the  com- 
mand of  his  new  Lord,  to  go  far  away  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles, since  we  are  elsewhere  told  by  him  that,  after 
leaving  Jerusalem,  he  preached  throughout  all  the 
coasts  of  Judea  before  going  to  the  Gentiles. 

We  will  now  take  a  fourth  account  given,  as  were 

^  Acts  xxii.  12-18,  21. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  14I 

two  of  the  previous  ones,  by  Paul  himself, — at  least, 
they  are  attributed  to  him  by  the  New  Testament; 
and  we  will  find  that  it  conflicts  with  and  contradicts 
all  the  others.  ''When  it  pleased  God  ...  to  reveal 
His  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  him  among  the 
heathen;  immediately  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and 
blood ;  Neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them  which 
were  apostles  before  me;  but  I  went  into  Arabia, 
and  returned  again  unto  Damascus.  Then  after  three 
years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  and  abode 
with  him  fifteen  days.  But  other  of  the  apostles  saw 
I  none,  save  James  the  Lord's  brother.  Now  the 
things  which  I  write  unto  you,  behold,  before  God,  I 
lie  not.  Afterwards  I  came  into  the  regions  of  Syria 
and  Cilicia:  And  was  unknown  by  face  unto  the 
churches  of  Judea  which  were  in  Christ;  But  they 
had  heard  only.  That  he  which  persecuted  us  in  times 
past  now  preacheth  the  faith  which  once  he  destroyed.  * 
.  .  .  Then  fourteen  years  after  I  went  up  again  to 
Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,  and  took  Titus  with  me 
also."' 

/Now,  this  is  an  account  that  contradicts  all  the 
previous  ones;  and  it  cannot  be  reconciled  with  them. 
According  to  it,  and  Paul  swears  that  he  is  this  time 
telling  the  truth,  he  did  not,  immediately  after  being 
converted  and  baptized,  begin  to  preach  Christ  at 
Damascus,  as  related  in  the  first  and  second  narratives; 
nor  did  he  return  at  once  to  Jerusalem,  and  offer  there 
his  testimony  concerning  Jesus,  as  mentioned  in  the 
third  account;  but,  without  conferring  with  flesh  and 
blood,   that  is,   without   holding   any   communication 

1  Galat.  i.  15-23.  ^  Ihid.  ii.  1. 


142      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

with  any  person,  he  went  away  into  Arabia.  How 
long  he  remained  in  Arabia  is  not  stated;  and,  after 
an  indefinite  sojourn  there,  he  returned  to  Damascus, 
and  was  there  for  three  years,  before  going  back  to 
Jerusalem.  When  he  did  go  to  Jerusalem,  it  was  to 
see  Peter,  and  he  remained  with  him  only  fifteen  days; 
and  then  he  went  away  to  Syria  and  Cilicia,  without 
seeing  any  of  the  other  Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  except 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus;  and  without  becoming 
known  by  face  to  the  Christian  churches  of  Judea, 
that  is,  without  doing  any  of  the  preaching  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  throughout  all  the  coasts  of  Judea  that  we 
are  in  the  other  narratives  told  that  he  did  do,  before 
going  to  the  Gentiles.  Fourteen  years  were  spent  by 
Paul  in  preaching  the  Christian  faith  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia;  and  then  he  went  again  to  Jerusalem,  being 
accompanied  on  this  occasion  by  Barnabas  and  Titus. 

These  contradictory  statements  and  narratives  are  a 
sample  of  the  kind  of  thing  that  is  given  us  in  the  New 
Testament;  and  yet  our  Christian  friends  would  have 
us  believe  that  it  is  an  inspired  book,  and  the  Word 
of  God !  To  call  it  the  Word  of  God  is  derogatory  to 
the  Majesty  of  Heaven. 

From  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Barnabas  in  the 
first  and  last  of  the  narratives  we  have  been  noticing 
and  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  last  of  them,  Paul  swears 
that  when  he  first  went  to  Jerusalem,  after  his  con- 
version, he  remained  there  for  fifteen  days  only,  and 
then  went  away  to  Syria  and  Cilicia  without  becoming 
known  by  face  to  the  Christian  churches  in  Judea, 
it  must  have  been  on  the  occasion  of  the  second  visit 
of  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  after  his  conversion,  that  Barna- 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 43 

bas  had  to  vouch  for  him  to  the  Christian  brethren 
of  that  city  before  they  would  receive  him  as  one  of 
their  number.  For  three  years  did  Paul  preach 
boldly  at  Damascus  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  confounding 
the  Jews,  and  proving  that  he  is  very  Christ  and  the 
Son  of  God ;  for  fourteen  more  years  did  Paul  zealously 
labor  in  the  cause  of  Christianity  in  the  regions  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia;  and  then,  after  these  seventeen  years 
of  ministration  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  when  this  wonder- 
ful Apostle  and  missionary  of  Christ  came  to  Jerusalem, 
and  essayed  to  join  himself  to  the  Christian  disciples 
there,  they  were  all  afraid  of  him,  and  believed  not 
that  he  was  a  disciple,  until  Barnabas  took  him,  and 
brought  him  to  the  Apostles,  and  declared  unto  them 
how  he  had  seen  the  Lord  in  the  way,  and  that  he  had 
spoken  to  him,  and  how  he  had  preached  boldly  at 
Damascus  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  In  more  than  one 
way  does  the  New  Testament  furnish  us  with  evidence 
of  the  insignificance  of  Paul  in  the  estimation  of  his 
contemporaries :  for  we  are  also  told  in  it  that  when 
he  was  afterwards  taken  to  Rome  and  sent  for  the 
principal  Jews  there,  to  explain  to  them  how  innocent 
he  was  of  the  charges  made  against  him,  they  answered 
that  they  had  heard  nothing  about  him.  ^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that,  in  offering  to  the  Apostles  at 
Jerusalem  his  testimony  concerning  the  conversion  of 
Paul  to  Christianity,  Barnabas  spoke  only  of  his 
preaching  at  Damascus  and  said  nothing  about  his 
fourteen  years'  work  as  an  Apostle  and  missionary  of 
Jesus  in  Syria  and  Cilicia,  which  would  lead  us  to 
conclude  either  that  the  fourteen  years  of  ministration 

'  Acts  xxviii.  21, 


144      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

in  these  provinces  were  not  worthy  of  mention  or 
else  that  it  was  before  Paul  went  to  these  countries 
that  Barnabas  vouched  for  him  at  Jerusalem.  But 
since  we  are  told  that  after  Barnabas  bore  witness  for 
Paul,  the  latter  was  with  the  Apostles  coming  in  and 
going  out  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  spoke  boldly  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  and  disputed  against  the  Grecians, 
until  the  Christian  brethren  brought  him  to  Cesarea, 
and  sent  him  away  to  Tarsus,  we  must,  in  adopting 
the  second  conclusion,  also  come  to  the  further  one 
that  Paul  was  not  telling  the  truth  when  he  swore 
that  he  was  unknown  by  face  to  the  Christian  churches 
in  Judea  until  after  his  fourteen  years'  sojourn  in 
Syria  and  Cilicia. 

In  short,  the  different  narratives  in  the  New 
Testament  about  Paul's  conversion  and  work,  three 
of  which  are  given  by  himself,  are  so  irreconcilable 
with  one  another  that  any  one  of  them  cannot  be 
accepted  without  denying  the  truth  of  the  others;  and 
no  value  can  therefore  be  attached  to  any  of  them.  If 
Paul  really  made  the  conflicting  statements  that  are 
put  into  his  mouth  by  the  New  Testament,  then  he 
was  incapable  of  telling  a  straight  story;  and  if  he  did 
not  make  them,  then  they  are  fabrications.  In  either 
case  they  show  Paul's  statements  to  be  undeserving  of 
belief;  and  they  are  fatal  to  the  character  of  the  New 
Testament  as  an  inspired  writing./ 

My  correspondent  asks  how  Paul  was  able  to  foretell 
that  Israel,  as  a  nation,  would  never  accept  Christ 
until  his  future  return  as  the  Messiah  in  glory;  and  if 
we  examine  any  of  the  arguments  by  which  Paul, 
according  to  the  New  Testament,  confounded  the  Jews, 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  145 

and  proved  Jesus  to  be  God,  we  will  find  in  them  a 
sufficient  answer  to  the  question  asked. 

For  an  example  of  Paul's  style  of  reasoning  we  will 
go  to  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  whom  he  calls  the 
"foolish  Galatians."  ^  In  it  he  says,  "  Now  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not. 
And  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one.  And  to  thy 
seed,  which  is  Christ."  ^  Paul's  argument  in  this  place 
is  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  word  ''seed"  in  the  singu- 
lar number;  and,  because  it  is  in  the  singular,  he  tells 
the  ''foolish  Galatians"  that  the  word  seed  must  mean 
one  individual,  and  not  many,  and  that  this  individual 
is  Christ.  Therefore,  according  to  Paul,  the  expres- 
sion "seed  of  Abraham"  means  Christ;  and  the 
promises  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  promises 
intended  for  Jesus  Christ.  ^ 

It  may,  incidentally,  be  asked  why,  from  the  Christian 
point  of  view,  there  should  be  any  occasion  for  the 
Almighty  to  make  promises  to  Christ,  and  especially 
promises  of  the  kind  that  were  made  to  the  descendants 
of  Abraham?  In  Christian  doctrine  Christ  is  a  god, 
and  one  of  a  triumvirate  of  Gods ;  he  is  co-cxistent  and 
co-eternal  with  the  Almighty,  and  he  is  the  creator  of 
the  world  and  the  ruler  of  heaven  and  earth;  and  for 
one  God  to  offer  to  another  God  who,  in  Christian 
belief,  is  not  inferior  to  Him  in  dignity,  power,  and 
glory,  promises  of  the  kind  made  to  mere  mortals  like 
Abraham  and  his  descendants  is  certainly  most  incon- 
gruous and  inconsistent.  The  promises  are  not  suitable 
to  the  character,  grandeur,  and  dominion  of  a  God  such 
as  Christians  believe  their  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be. 

'  Galat.  iii.  i.  ^  Ibid.  iii.  16. 


146      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

If  we  now  refer  to  any  of  the  passages  in  Genesis 
from  which  Paul  quoted,  we  will  see  what  a  travesty 
upon  his  text  his  argument  is.  "And  the  Eternal 
appeared  unto  Abram,  and  said,  Unto  thy  seed  will  I 
give  this  land."^  Therefore,  according  to  Paul's 
argument,  it  was  not  to  the  children  of  Israel,  but  to 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  Christians  believe  to  be  the  creator 
of  the  universe,  and  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that 
the  Almighty  promised  the  land  of  Canaan  as  a  posses- 
sion and  aft  inheritance. 


XV 


"And  I  will  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth; 
so  that  if  a  man  can  number  the  dust  of  the  earth,  then 
shall  thy  seed  also  be  numbered."  ^  The  Apostle  Paul 
claims  that  the  words  "thy  seed"  mean  Christ;  there- 
fore, according  to  his  argument,  it  is  not  the  people  of 
Israel,  but  Christ,  whom  the  Almighty  has  promised 
to  make  as  numberless  as  the  dust  of  the  earth. 

"And  He  brought  him  forth  abroad,  and  said,  Look 
now  toward  the  heaven,  and  count  the  stars,  if  thou 
be  able  to  count  them;  and  He  said  unto  him.  So  shall 
thy  seed  be."  ^  Therefore,  according  to  Paul's  argument, 
it  is  Christ,  and  not  the  children  of  Israel,  whom  the 
Eternal  promised  to  make  as  countless  as  the  stars  in 
heaven. 

"And  He  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a  surety  that 
thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  which  is  not 
theirs,  and  they  will  make  them  serve,  and  they  will 

'  Gen.  xii.  7.  ^  Ibid.  xiii.  16.  '  Ihid.  xv.  5. 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  I47 

afflict  them  four  hundred  years."  ^  Therefore,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  it  was  not  the  children  of  Israel,  but  Jesus 
Christ  and  a  nation  of  Christs  who  were  strangers  in 
the  land  of  Egypt,  and  served  the  Egyptians,  and  were 
afflicted  by  them  for  400  years. 

"And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  But  thou,  for  thy 
part,  shalt  keep  My  covenant,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations.  This  is  My  covenant, 
which  ye  shall  keep,  between  Me  and  between  you, 
and  between  thy  seed  after  thee:  Every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  ^  Therefore,  accord- 
ing to  Paul's  argument,  it  was  not  with  the  children 
of  Israel,  but  with  Christ,  and  with  generations  of 
Christs,  that  the  Almighty  established  the  covenant 
of  circumcision. 

**By  Myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the  Eternal,  since 
because  thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  with- 
held thy  son,  thy  only  one;  That  I  will  greatly  bless 
thee,  and  I  will  exceedingly  multiply  thy  seed  as  the 
stars  of  the  heaven,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  upon  the 
sea-shore;  and  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his 
enemies;  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed;  because  thou  hast  obeyed  My  voice."  ^ 
According  to  the  argument  of  Paul,  the  words  ''thy 
seed"  mean  Christ;  and,  therefore,  it  was  Christ,  and 
not  the  Israelites,  whom  the  Eternal  promised  to 
multiply  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  as  the  sand  upon 
the  sea-shore. 

Paul's  argument  about  the  words  "thy  seed"  is  a 
sample  of  the  kind  of  reasoning  we  find  everywhere 
throughout  the  New  Testament.   In  its  pages  expression 

'  Gen.  XV,  13.  '  Ihid.  xvii.  9,  10.         '  Ibid.  xxii.  16-18. 


148      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

is  given  to  the  most  daring  perversions,  and  to  the 
most  ridiculous  misapplications,  of  the  words  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  that  the  mind  of  man  can  possibly 
conceive. 

In  commenting,  in  a  previous  number,  upon  the  iioth 
Psalm,  I  gave  some  consideration  to  the  argument 
advanced  by  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
concerning  the  pretended  change  made  by  the  Almighty 
in  the  order  of  the  priesthood,  from  that  of  Aaron  to 
that  of  Christ;  and  showed  how  palpably  erroneous 
his  contention  was.  In  connection  with  the  same  sub- 
ject Paul  is  represented  as  saying:  "For  this  Mel- 
chisedec,  King  of  Salem,  priest  of  the  Most  High  God, 
who  met  Abraham  returning  from  the  slaughter  of  the 
kings,  and  blessed  him ;  To  whom  also  Abraham  gave 
a  tenth  part  of  all;  first  being  by  interpretation  King 
of  righteousness,  and  after  that  also  King  of  Salem, 
which  is  King  of  peace;  Without  father,  without 
mother,  without  descent,  having  neither  beginning  of 
days,  nor  end  of  life;  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of 
God;  abideth  a  priest  continually.  Now  consider 
how  great  this  man  was,  unto  whom  even  the  patriarch 
Abraham  gave  the  tenth  of  the  spoils."  ^ 

In  accordance  with  this  passage,  our  Christian 
friends  regard  Malkizedek,  King  of  Salem,  as  a  most 
mysterious  personage,  because  Paul  describes  him  as 
such,  and  because  he  had  maintained  the  worship  of 
God,  and  was  at  once  king  and  priest;  and  they 
consider  the  assumed  fact  that  to  him  Abraham  rever- 
ently gave  tithes  of  all  the  spoil  that  he  had  taken  in 
his  expedition  against  the  four  kings,  and  received  his 

'  Hebrews  vii.  1-4. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  1 49 

solemn  blessing,  as  a  proof  of  how  high  the  rank  and 
dignity  of  Malkizedek  must  have  been.  But  did 
Abraham  give  tithes  to  Malkizedek;  or  was  it  the 
latter  who  offered  them  to  Abraham? 

The  passage  in  Genesis  referring  to  the  event  must 
be  familiar  to  all  my  readers.  ''And  the  King  of 
Sodom  went  out  to  meet  him  (Abraham),  after  his 
return  from  smiting  Kedorlaomer  and  the  kings  that 
were  with  him,  at  the  valley  of  Shaveh,  which  is  the 
king's  dale.  And  Malkizedek,  King  of  Salem,  brought 
forth  bread  and  wine ;  and  he  was  a  priest  of  the  Most 
High  God.  And  he  blessed  him,  and  said,  Blessed 
be  Abram  of  the  Most  High  God,  the  Possessor  of 
heaven  and  earth.  And  blessed  be  the  Most  High 
God,  who  hath  delivered  thy  enemies  into  thy  hand; 
and  he  gave  him  tithes  of  all.  And  the  King  of  Sodom 
said  unto  Abram,  Give  me  the  persons,  and  the  goods 
take  to  thyself.  And  Abram  said  to  the  King  of  Sodom, 
I  have  Hfted  up  my  hand  unto  the  Lord,  the  Most 
High  God,  the  Possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,  That 
I  will  not  take  from  a  thread  even  to  a  shoe-latchet, 
and  that  I  will  not  take  anything  that  is  thine;  lest 
thou  shouldst  say,  I  have  made  Abram  rich;  Save 
only  that  which  the  young  men  have  eaten,  and  the 
portion  of  the  men  who  went  with  me,  Aner,  Eshcol, 
and  Mamre — these  may  take  their  portion."  ^ 

Nothing  could  be  simpler  than  the  construction  of 
the  foregoing  sentences.  "And  he  blessed  him  .  .  . 
and  he  gave  him  tithes  of  all";  that  is,  "And  he  (Mal- 
kizedek) blessed  him  (Abraham)  .  .  .  and  he  (Mal- 
kizedek)   gave    him    (Abraham)    tithes    of    all."     To 

*  Gen.  xiv.  17-24. 


150      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

argue,  as  Paul  does,  that  while  it  was  Malkizedek  who 
blessed  Abraham,  yet  it  was  the  latter  who  gave  tithes 
to  the  former,  is  to  violate  the  most  elementary  rules 
of  grammatical  construction.  If  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  way  in  which  Paul 
and  our  Christian  friends  explain  and  apply  them,  then 
was  the  Old  Testament  the  most  useless  book  that 
ever  was  written.  For  any  doctrine,  no  matter  how 
impious  or  absurd  it  may  be,  can  be  proved  from  it  in 
that  way. 

Even  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  were  to  suppose 
that  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  sentences 
permits  us  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  it  may  have 
been  Abraham  who  gave  tithes  of  the  spoils  to  Mal- 
kizedek, the  context  would  effectually  disprove  such 
an  inference.  For,  in  order  that  Abraham  could  have 
given  tithes  of  the  spoils  to  Malkizedek,  he  must 
himself  have  taken  or  accepted  them  from  the  king  of 
Sodom.  He  could  not  give  what  he  did  not  have; 
he  could  not  have  given  them,  unless  he  had  first 
accepted  them.  And  since  we  are  expressly  told  that 
Abraham  absolutely  refused  to  take  any  part  of  the 
spoils,  then  had  he  no  portion  of  them  to  give  away. 
*'I  have  lifted  up  my  hand  unto  the  Lord,  the  Most 
High  God,  the  Possessor  of  heaven  and  earth.  That 
I  will  not  take  from  a  thread  even  to  a  shoe-latchet, 
and  that  I  will  not  take  anything  that  is  thine;  lest 
thou  shouldst  say,  I  have  made  Abram  rich,"  ^  was 
the  reply  of  the  proud  Hebrew  prince  to  the  offers  of 
the  grateful  kings.  And  we  cannot  suppose  that 
Abraham   gave   tithes   to    Malkizedek   without    also 

*  Gen.  xiv.  22,  23. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  1 51 

assuming  that  he  had  first  accepted  part  of  the  spoils 
from  the  king  of  Sodom  and  had  violated  his  oath  to 
the  Almighty. 

However  important  a  personage  Malkizedek  may 
have  been,  Abraham  must  be  deemed  to  have  been  a 
still  greater  one,  since  he  accompHshed  what  the 
former  dared  not  even  attempt;  and  the  service  Abra- 
ham rendered  in  defeating  Kedorlaomer  and  his  aUics 
must  have  been  of  benefit  to  the  king  of  Salem  as  well 
as  to  the  kings  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  relieving 
them  all  from  dreaded  and  powerful  enemies,  since 
Malkizedek  went  out  with  the  king  of  Sodom  to  meet 
the  victorious  Hebrew,  and  to  receive  him  with  hos- 
pitality, and  bless  him  for  what  he  had  done.  And 
then,  when  Malkizedek  would  have  given  Abraham 
tithes  of  all,  the  king  of  Sodom,  in  the  excess  of  his 
gratitude,  exclaimed,  ''Give  me  the  persons,  and  the 
goods  take  to  thyself."  And  if  Malkizedek  was  a 
priest  of  the  Most  High  God,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Abraham  was  also  one,  and  known  by  all  the 
people  among  whom  he  dwelt  to  be  under  the  special 
protection  of  heaven.  "He  suffered  no  man  to  oppress 
them;  yea,  He  reproved  kings  for  their  sake,  saying. 
Touch  not  My  anointed,  and  do  My  prophets  no 
harm."  ^  "Blessed  be  Abramof  the  Most  High  God, 
the  Possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,"  ^  was  the  language 
of  Malkizedek;  "God  is  with  thee  in  all  that  thou 
doest,"  ^  said  Abimelech,  king  of  Gerar;  and  "A 
prince  of  God  thou  art  among  us,"  ^  exclaimed  the 
children  of  Heth. 

^  I  Chron.  xvi.  21,  22.  ^  Gen.  xiv.  19. 

*  Ibid.  xxi.  22.  *  Ibid,  xxiii.  6. 


152       A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISITAN  EVANGELISTS. 

One  of  the  principal  reasons  why  Christians  regard 
Malkizedek  as  a  mysterious  personage  appears  to  be 
because  he  was  a  worshipper  and  priest  of  the  One 
true  God;  but  this,  surely,  is  not  an  adequate  reason 
for  surrounding  him  with  the  halo  of  mystery  with 
which  Paul  has  invested  him.  It  would  be  much 
more  surprising  to  learn  that  the  knowledge  and 
worship  of  the  Almighty  had  been  entirely  lost  in  the 
mists  of  idolatry  at  a  time  when  Noah  was  scarcely 
dead,  and  Shem  was  still  living,  than  that  Abraham 
was  not  the  only  man  of  his  day  who  maintained  the 
worship  of  the  true  God.  Idolatry  may  have  prevailed 
in  many  places;  but  there  must  also  have  been  some 
others  where  prayers  and  supplications  were  still 
addressed  to  no  other  deity  than  the  God  of  Noah  and 
of  Shem. 

There  is  a  tradition  among  the  Jews  that  Shem  was 
the  Malkizedek  who  went  forth  to  meet  Abraham 
after  his  victory  over  the  kings;  and  that  Shem,  like 
his  father  Noah,  was  a  just  and  perfect  man  and  the 
faithful  servant  of  God.  The  pious  character  of  Shem 
is  attested  by  the  invocation  of  Noah:  "Blessed  be  the 
Eternal,  the  God  of  Shem.  .  .  .  May  God  enlarge  the 
boundaries  of  Japheth,  and  may  he  dwell  in  the  tents 
of  Shem."*  Shem  was  100  years  old  when  his  son 
Arpachshad  was  born,  and  he  lived  for  500  years  after 
the  birth  of  Arpachshad ;  ^  and  as  Abraham  was  born 
290  years  after  Arpachshad,  and  lived  175  years, 
Shem  was  not  only  living  in  the  days  of  Abraham, 
but  he  survived  Abraham  by  a  period  of  35  years.' 
There  is  therefore  ample  possibility  that  the  tradition 

'  Gen.  ix.  26,  27.         '^  Ibid.  xi.  lo,  ii.         -  Ibid.  xi.  a.nd  xxv.  7. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED.  1 53 

that  Shem  was  Malkizedek  was  well-founded;  and 
God  may  have  fulfilled  the  blessing  of  Noah,  and 
permitted  His  Spirit  to  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem;  so 
that  Shem  may  justly  have  earned  the  title  of  Malkiz- 
edek, which  means  ''righteous  king,"  and  the  city  of 
his  residence  may  well  have  been  called  Salem,  or 
Peace,  and  he  himself  have  been  known  as  a  priest  of 
the  Most  High  God. 

Whoever  Malkizedek  may  have  been, — whether 
he  were  Shem,  or  some  other  pious  servant  of  God, — 
what  are  we  to  think  of  the  sanity  and  credibility  of 
any  person  who  should  describe  him  as  Paul  has  done, 
as  a  man  "without  father,  without  mother,  without 
descent,  having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of 
life;  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God;  abideth  a 
priest  continually?"*  What  are  we  to  think  of  the 
claims  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
when  we  find  in  it  a  statement  of  this  kind  presented 
for  our  serious  consideration  and  belief?  If  Malkiz- 
edek had  neither  father,  nor  mother,  nor  descent, 
neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of  Hfe,  but  was 
made  hke  unto  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  then  Christians 
should  not  believe  him  to  have  been  a  man ;  he  should, 
in  Christian  belief,  be  a  divine  being,  eternal  and 
immortal,  a  God,  a  Fourth  God,  whom  Christians  have 
no  right  to  ignore,  and  whom  they  should  worship 
even  as  they  do  Jesus  Christ. 

If  the  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  is  to  be  received  as  to  Jesus,  then  their 
testimony  should  be  deemed  equally  credible  and 
conclusive  with   reference  to   Malkizedek.     It  is  the 

1  Heb.  vii.  .s. 


154      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS. 

same  authority  that  is  speaking  in  both  cases;  and 
Christians  cannot  consistently  accept  it  with  respect 
to  Christ  and  ignore  it  in  regard  to  Malkizedek.  And 
since  it  is  declared  in  the  New  Testament  and  by  the 
Apostle  Paul  that  Malkizedek  was  made  like  unto 
the  Son  of  God,  one  of  them  could  not  have  been  a 
god  and  the  other  only  a  man.  Being  made  like  unto 
one  another,  they  must  necessarily  have  been,  either 
both  of  them  gods,  or  both  of  them  men. 


XVI 


The  instances  we  have  given  of  Paul's  style  of 
argument  are  examples  of  the  kind  of  reasoning  to  be 
found  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Epistles  ascribed  to 
him;  and  it  is  upon  these  Epistles  that  nearly  the 
whole  of  Systematic  Christianity  is  founded.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  Paul,  who  was  a  learned  man,  and  there- 
fore must  have  known  that  he  was  wilfully,  and  in  a 
ridiculous  manner,  perverting  the  meaning  and  appli- 
cation of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  should  predict  that 
the  Israelites  would  never  accept  Christ  as  the  Messiah 
until  his  future  return  in  glory.  Paul's  prediction  was 
an  admission  by  him  that  the  pretensions  of  Chris- 
tiamty  were  utterly  opposed  to  the  truths  of  Judaism, 
and  would,  on  that  account,  never  be  received  by  the 
Jews. 

The  last  question  remaining  to  be  noticed  is,  "How 
do  you  account  for  the  spread  of  Christianity?" 

My  correspondent  might  as  well  have  asked  me 
how  I  account  for  the  propagation  of  Mahometanism. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED.  1 55 

for  the  diffusion  of  the  one  religion  no  more  proves 
than  does  the  dissemination  of  the  other,  that  either 
of  them  is  from  God.  If  the  spread  of  Christianity  is 
to  be  accounted  a  proof  of  its  divine  origin;  then  the 
same  argument  can,  with  equal,  if  not  greater,  force, 
be  advanced  in  favor  of  Mahometanism.  If  the 
Christian  should  reply  to  this,  by  ascribing  the  success 
of  Mahometanism  to  the  sword;  the  Mahometan 
might  answer,  with  truth,  that  many  more  nations 
embraced  Islamism  voluntarily  than  there  were  who 
freely  received  Christianity;  and  he  might  remind  the 
Christian  how  much  Christianity  owed  to  the  accession 
of  Constantine,  and  to  Charlemagne,  and  that  the 
monks  were  assisted  by  soldiers  to  convert  to  Chris- 
tianity almost  every  nation  in  Europe.  In  very  truth, 
of  all  the  religions  that  the  earth  has  known,  not  one 
has  ever  been  the  cause  of  shedding  more  innocent 
blood  than  has  Christianity;  that  Christianity  which 
is  supposed  to  preach  universal  love,  and  to  command 
its  followers  to  live  in  peace. 

Among  the  Jews  Christianity  was  a  failure.  The 
Apostles  met  with  such  poor  success  among  the  Jews 
that  they  soon  quitted  Judea,  and  went  to  the  Gentiles, 
who  were  accustomed  to  listen  to  marvellous  tales  of 
the  kind  the  Apostles  brought  them.  The  idea  of 
God  having  a  son  by  a  woman  did  not  shock  the 
Gentiles,  for  they  believed  all  their  demi-gods  to  have 
been  so  begotten;  and  their  poems  were  filled  with 
accounts  of  the  exploits  and  sufferings  of  these  heroes, 
who  were  rewarded  by  being  raised  from  earth  to 
heaven,  as  Jesus  was  said  to  have  been.  These  tales 
were  not  disrelished  by  the  common  people,  though 


156      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

they  were  laughed  at  by  the  wise  and  learned  among 
the  Gentiles.  Their  mythological  fables  had  been 
a  subject  of  ridicule  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  philos- 
ophers for  centuries  before  the  time  of  Jesus ;  and  Paul 
was  derided  by  the  philosophers  of  Athens  when  he 
preached  to  them  about  Jesus  being  the  Son  of  God,  as 
telling  them  a  story  similar  to  those  of  their  own 
mythology. 

Among  the  Gentiles,  the  church  of  Christ  was  not, 
at  the  first,  gathered  from  the  Academy  or  the  Lyceum, 
but  from  the  lower  classes,  from  simple  and  unlearned 
men  and  credulous  women.  The  first  teachers  of 
Christianity  met  with  little  or  no  success  among  the 
intelHgent  and  educated;  and  even  the  Christian 
fathers  tell  us  that  the  greater  part  of  their  congrega- 
tions consisted  of  women  and  children,  slaves  and 
beggars.  It  was  only  after  the  name  and  divine 
attributes  of  the  Logos  of  Plato  had  been  confirmed  by 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  and  the  Logos  had  been  revealed 
to  the  Gentile  world  as  the  sacred  object  of  Christian 
worship,  and  the  theological  system  of  Plato  had  been 
made  the  basis  of  Christian  doctrine,  that  Christianity 
began  to  make  converts  among  the  educated  Gentiles. 

The  principal  cause  of  the  adoption  of  Christianity 
by  the  Greeks  and  Romans  was,  undoubtedly,  the 
want  of  a  better  religion,  which  had  been  experienced 
by  their  philosophers,  and,  generally,  by  all  their 
educated  classes,  for  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era.  The  philosophers 
of  Greece  and  Rome  had  outgrown  their  polytheism; 
and  even  before  the  time  of  Plato,  who  flourished  400 
years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus,  they  had  been  striving 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  1 57 

to  invent  a  more  rational  theology,  and,  in  so  doing, 
had  diffused  around  them  an  ever-increasing  dissatis- 
faction with  the  popular  worship;  so  that,  when 
Christianity  made  its  appearance,  there  were  great 
numbers  of  educated  people  who  were  prepared  to 
abandon  heathenism  and  embrace  a  more  spiritual 
faith,  which  Christianity  was.  And  we  have  already 
seen  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Gentiles  favored  the 
spread  of  the  new  religion  and  dictated  its  doctrines; 
and  that  the  Triad  of  the  philosophical  schools  became 
the  Trinity  of  the  Christian  system. 

In  discussing  the  celebrated  five  causes  assigned  by 
him  for  the  growth  of  the  Christian  church.  Gibbon 
states  that  the  "sullen  obstinacy  with  which  the  Jews 
maintained  their  peculiar  rites  and  unsocial  manners 
seemed  to  mark  them  out  a  distinct  species  of  men, 
who  boldly  professed,  or  who  faintly  disguised,  their 
implacable  hatred  to  the  rest  of  human-kind.  .  .  . 
The  descendants  of  Abraham  were  flattered  by  the 
opinion  that  they  alone  were  the  heirs  of  the  covenant ; 
and  they  were  apprehensive  of  diminishing  the  value 
of  their  inheritance  by  sharing  it  too  easily  with  the 
strangers  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  The  obligation  of  preaching 
to  the  Gentiles  the  faith  of  Moses  had  never  been 
inculcated  as  a  precept  of  the  law,  nor  were  the  Jews 
inclined  to  impose  it  on  themselves  as  a  voluntary 
duty.  .  .  .  Their  peculiar  distinctions  of  days,  of 
meats,  and  a  variety  of  trivial  though  burdensome 
observances,  were  so  many  objects  of  disgust  and 
aversion  for  the  other  nations,  to  whose  habits  and 
prejudices  they  were  diametrically  opposite.  The 
painful  and  even  dangerous  rite  of  circumcision  was 


158      A   JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

alone  capable  of  repelling  a  willing  proselyte  from  the 
door  of  the  synagogue."  ^ 

And,  speaking  of  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  Gibbon 
says:  "We  might  naturally  expect  that  a  principle 
so  essential  to  religion  would  have  been  revealed  in 
the  clearest  terms  to  the  chosen  people  of  Palestine, 
and  that  it  might  safely  have  been  intrusted  to  the 
hereditary  priesthood  of  Aaron.  It  is  incumbent  on  us 
to  adore  the  mysterious  dispensations  of  Providence 
when  we  discover  that  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  is  omitted  in  the  Law  of  Moses ;  it  is  darkly 
insinuated  by  the  prophets;  and  during  the  long  period 
which  elapsed  between  the  Egyptian  and  the  Baby- 
lonian servitudes,  the  hopes  as  well  as  fears  of  the 
Jews  appear  to  have  been  confined  within  the  narrow 
compass  of  the  present  life.  After  Cyrus  had  permitted 
the  exiled  nations  to  return  into  the  Promised  Land, 
and  after  Ezra  had  restored  the  ancient  records  of 
their  religion,  two  celebrated  sects,  the  Sadducees 
and  the  Pharisees,  insensibly  arose  at  Jerusalem.  The 
former,  selected  from  the  more  opulent  and  distin- 
guished ranks  of  society,  were  strictly  attached  to  the 
literal  sense  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  they  piously 
rejected  the  immortahty  of  the  soul,  as  an  opinion 
that  received  no  countenance  from  the  Divine  Book, 
which  they  revered  as  the  only  rule  of  their  faith.  To 
the  authority  of  Scripture  the  Pharisees  added  that  of 
traditions;  and  they  accepted,  under  the  name  of 
traditions,  several  speculative  tenets  from  the  philos- 
ophy or  religion  of  the  Eastern  nations.  The  doctrines 
of  fate  or  predestination,  of  angels  or  spirits,  and  of  a 

>  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2  ch.  xv.  (Bohn,  1854). 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 59 

future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  were  in  the 
number  of  these  new  articles  of  belief;  and  as  the 
Pharisees,  by  the  austerity  of  their  manners,  had  drawn 
into  their  party  the  body  of  the  Jewish  people,  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  became  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment of  the  synagogue,  under  the  reign  of  the  Asmo- 
nean  princes  and  pontiffs.  The  temper  of  the  Jews 
was  incapable  of  contenting  itself  with  such  a  cold 
and  languid  assent  as  might  satisfy  the  mind  of  a 
polytheist :  and,  as  soon  as  they  admitted  the  idea  of  a 
future  state,  they  embraced  it  with  the  zeal  which 
has  always  formed  the  characteristic  of  the  nation. 
Their  zeal,  however,  added  nothing  to  its  evidence,  or 
even  probabiHty;  and  it  was  still  necessary  that  the 
doctrine  of  Ufe  and  immortality,  which  had  been 
dictated  by  nature,  approved  by  reason,  and  received 
by  superstition,  should  obtain  the  sanction  of  divine 
truth  from  the  authority  and  example  of  Christ."  * 

It  is  impossible  for  a  Hebrew  to  read  the  eloquent 
pages  of  Gibbon  without  noting,  in  nearly  every 
reference  made  by  him  to  the  Jews  and  their  religion, 
the  bitter  prejudice  and  animosity  that  spring  from 
Christian  ignorance  of  the  principles  and  teachings  of 
Judaism,  and  from  Christian  inability  to  either  com- 
prehend or  believe  in  its  broad,  humane,  and  tolerant 
spirit.  The  same  bitterness  of  feeling  that  is  displayed 
by  Gibbon  is  exhibited  in  the  works  of  all  other  Chris- 
tian writers ;  and  they  are  often  insensible  of  its  appear- 
ance in  their  own  writings,  while  deprecating  it  in  those 
of  others.  Thus,  Milman  finds  himself  compelled  to 
apologize  for  Gibbon,  of  whom  he  says:    "His  mind, 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  pp.  26-28  (Bohn,  1854). 


l6o      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

notwithstanding  its  boasted  liberality,  was  by  no 
means  exempt  from  the  old  vulgar  prejudices  against 
the  Jews;  heightened,  perhaps,  by  his  unfriendly 
feeling,  not  much  more  philosophical,  to  the  religion 
from  which  Christianity  took  its  rise";  and  yet  Milman 
habitually  shows  the  same  bigotry  and  prejudice,  and 
the  same  preconceived  opinions  against  Judaism  and 
the  Jews,  that  he  regrets  to  find  in  Gibbon.  The 
reason  for  all  this  innate  animosity  against  Judaism 
and  the  Jews,  that  our  Christian  friends  cannot  pre- 
vent themselves  from  exhibiting,  undoubtedly  is  that 
Christians  are  what  their  religion  teaches  them  to  be; 
and  all  Christian  teaching  is  narrow,  intolerant,  and 
essentially  anti- Jewish.  Christianity,  nominally  based 
upon  Judaism,  is,  in  reality,  radically  opposed  to  it. 

The  observation  that  has  just  been  made  regarding 
our  Christian  friends,— that  they  are  what  their  religion 
teaches  them  to  be, — is  also  appHcable  to  the  Jews, 
with  reference  to  their  religion.  If  their  Scriptures 
taught  the  Israelites  to  foster  feelings  of  hatred  toward 
their  fellow-beings  who  were  not  Israelites,  then  we 
would  not  feel  called  upon  to  express  surprise,  when 
Christian  writers  should  speak  of  the  implacable 
hatred  entertained  by  the  Jews  for  the  remainder  of 
mankind  as  a  Jewish  trait  concerning  the  existence 
of  which  there  could  be  no  doubt;  but,  when  their 
Scriptures  teach  the  Jews  to  love  the  non-Israelites  as 
they  do  their  own  people,  then  we  are  forced  to  con- 
clude that  the  charge  of  hatred  to  the  rest  of  mankind, 
brought  against  the  sons  of  Israel  by  their  Christian 
critics,  is  not  founded  upon  any  excess  of  love  cherished 
for  them   by   the   latter.     We   can  understand,   even 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  l6l 

while  we  lament,  that  the  fidelity  with  which  the  Jews, 
in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  Almighty,  main- 
tain the  observance  of  the  ordinances  by  which  He 
distinguished  them,  as  His  witnesses,  from  all  other 
nations,  could  draw  from  Gibbon  and  other  eminent 
Christian  writers  no  kinder  a  term  than  that  of  "sullen 
obstinacy";  and  that  the  manners  of  the  Jews  should 
be  described  as  '*  unsocial,"  even  though  they  are 
enjoined  to  share  with  non-Jews  the  festivities  of  their 
religious  celebrations. 

If  we  compare  the  teaching  of  Moses  with  that  of 
Jesus,  we  will  have  no  difficulty  in  determining  whether 
it  be  Judaism  or  Christianity  that  imparts  to  its  fol- 
lowers a  feeling  of  hatred  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 
And  we  will  first  state  what  the  Law  of  Moses  taught. 

"And  a  stranger  thou  shalt  not  vex,  and  shall  not 
oppress  him;  for  strangers  ye  were  in  the  land  of 
Egypt."  ^ — "And  a  stranger  shalt  thou  not  oppress; 
for  ye  know  well  the  spirit  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye 
yourselves  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  ^ — 
If  a  stranger  sojourn  with  thee,  in  your  land,  ye 
shall  not  vex  him.  As  one  born  in  the  land  among  you, 
shall  be  unto  you  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  with 
you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself;  for  yc  were 
strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt :  I  am  the  Eternal  your 
God."' — "One  manner  of  judicial  law  shall  ye  have, 
the  stranger  shall  be  equal  with  one  of  your  own  country ; 
for  I  am  the  Eternal  your  God."^ — "Congregation! 
One  statute  shall  be  for  you  and  for  the  stranger  that 
sojourneth:    a  statute  for  ever  in  your  generations; 

'  Exod.  xxii.  20.  *  Ibid,  xxiii.  9. 

'  Levit.  xix.  33,  34.  *  Ibid.  xxiv.  22. 


1 62      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

as  ye  are,  so  shall  the  stranger  be  before  the  Eternal. 
One  law  and  one  code  shall  be  for  you  and  for  the 
stranger  that  soj.ourneth  with  you."  ^ — "For  the  native 
born  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  for  the  stranger 
that  sojourneth  among  them;  one  law  shall  be  for 
you,  for  him  that  acteth  through  ignorance."  ^ 


XVII. 

In  the  last  number  I  cited  some  of  the  passages 
from  the  Pentateuch  that  commanded  the  IsraeHtes  to 
treat  strangers,  that  is,  non-Jews,  in  the  same  way 
that  they  would  their  own  people.  The  IsraeHtes  were 
ordered  to  love  non-Israehtes,  and  to  abstain  from 
vexing  and  oppressing  them,  first,  because  they  were 
taught  that  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  non-Jews,  are 
equal  in  the  sight  of  the  Almighty;  and,  secondly, 
because  the  IsraeHtes  had  learned,  from  the  cruelties 
practised  upon  them  during  their  sojourn  in  Egypt, 
what  it  was  to  be  strangers  in  a  land  that  was  not 
theirs.  The  cruel  persecutions  which  the  IsraeHtes 
had  suffered  in  Egypt  they  were  commanded  not  to 
imitate,  not  to  retaHate  upon  others;  but  they  were 
enjoined  to  love  the  stranger,  and  to  learn  from  their 
own  sufferings  while  in  Egypt  that  they  must  be  as 
kind  and  considerate  to  all  who  were  not  of  their  own 
nation  as  they  would  or  could  be  to  members  of  their 
own  race.  "Thou  shalt  love  the  stranger  as  thyself; 
for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt.^     As  ye  are, 

^  Numb.  XV.  15, 16.  2  Ibtd.,  29. 

^  Levit.  xix.  34. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  163 

SO  shall  the  stranger  be  before  the  Eternal."*  If 
these  be  lessons  of  a  Idnd  that  tend  to  inculcate  feelings 
of  hatred  to  the  rest  of  humanity,  then,  possibly,  the 
Jews  may  be  rightly  stigmatized  by  Christian  writers 
as  implacable  haters  of  their  fellow-men;  but,  if  they 
are  teachings  of  a  totally  opposite  character,  then  do 
those  Christian  writers  who  bring  such  charges  against 
the  Israehtes  show  that  it  is  not  within  the  spirit 
of  Christianity  to  understand  the  sentiments  of  love 
toward  all  men  that  the  God  of  Israel  has  laid  down 
as  a  law  to  be  observed  by  His  chosen  people. 

"For  the  Eternal  your  God  is  the  God  of  gods,  and 
the  Lord  of  lords,  the  great,  the  mighty,  and  the 
terrible  God,  who  hath  no  regard  to  persons,  and 
taketh  no  bribe;  who  executeth  justice  for  the  father- 
less and  the  widow,  and  loveth  the  stranger,  to  give 
him  food  and  raiment.  Love  ye  then  the  stranger; 
for  you  have  been  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  ^ 
This  is  what  the  Law  of  Moses  teaches  the  Jew. 

The  Israelites  were  not  taught  that  conversion  to 
Judaism  was  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  non- 
Israelite;  nor  were  they  told  that  the  non-Israelite 
was  under  the  ban  of  the  Almighty,  and  belonged  to 
the  kingdom  of  Satan,  and  was  doomed  by  God  to 
eternal  torture;  but  they  were  taught  that  the  Eternal 
their  God  loved  the  non-Israelite,  and  commanded 
them  to  love  him,  and  to  abstain  from  vexing  and 
oppressing  him.  The  narrow  and  intolerant  doctrine 
that  belief  in  one  particular  creed  is  necessary  to 
salvation  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  nor 
elsewhere   in    the    Hebrew    Scriptures.     There   is   no 

iNumb.  XV.  15.  ^  Deut.  x,  17-19. 


164      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

exclusiveness  of  that  kind  in  the  Jewish  rehgion.  Their 
sages  have  always  taught  the  Jews  that  the  pious  and 
virtuous  of  all  faiths  have  an  equal  share  in  the  happi- 
ness of  the  future  life;  and  the  charge  that,  because 
the  Jews  do  not  seek  to  convert  Gentiles  to  Judaism, 
they  are  under  the  apprehension  of  diminishing  the 
value  of  their  inheritance,  by  sharing  it  too  easily 
with  the  strangers  of  the  earth,  is  one  of  those  accusa- 
tions that  only  prejudice,  and  inability  to  understand 
the  grand  principles  of  Judaism,  could  occasion  our 
Christian  friends  to  bring  against  the  Jewish  people. 

One  of  the  kindest  epithets  that  Gibbon  and  other 
Christian  writers  can  bring  themselves  to  apply  to  the 
Jews  is  that  of  "that  unsocial  people."  But  the 
charge  of  being  not  social  towards  the  non-Israehte 
has  as  little  foundation  as  that  of  being  haters  of  the 
rest  of  mankind;  for  the  Jews  were  expressly  com- 
manded to  include  all  non- Israelites  living  among  them 
in  the  enjoyment  of  all  their  festivities,  and  to  show 
them,  at  all  times,  the  same  kindness,  consideration 
and  hospitality  that  they  were  ordered  to  extend  to 
the  Levite,  and  to  the  fatherless  and  the  widow  of 
their  own  race.  "At  the  end  of  three  years  shalt  thou 
bring  forth  all  the  tithe  of  thy  produce  in  the  same 
year,  and  thou  shalt  lay  it  down  within  thy  gates: 
And  then  shall  come  the  Levite,  because  he  hath  no 
portion  nor  inheritance  with  thee,  and  the  stranger, 
and  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  that  are  within  thy 
gates,  and  they  shall  cat  and  be  satisfied;  in  order 
that  the  Eternal  thy  God  may  bless  thee  in  all  the  work 
of  thy  hand  which  thou  doest."^     HospitaHty  to  the 

'  Deut.  xiv.  28,  29. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 65 

non-Israelite  was  thus  made  a  maxim  of  the  Jewish 
religion;  and  it  is  one  of  the  ordinances  that  must  be 
observed  by  the  Jew,  if  he  would  hope  to  secure  the 
blessing  of  the  Almighty. 

''And  thou  shalt  rejoice  before  the  Eternal  thy  God, 
thou,  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  man- 
servant, and  thy  maid-servant,  and  the  Levite  that  is 
within  thy  gates,  and  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless, 
and  the  widow,  that  are  in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the 
place  which  the  Eternal  thy  God  will  choose  to  let  His 
name  dwell  there."  ^ — "And  thou  shalt  rejoice  on 
thy  feast,  thou,  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and 
thy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid-servant,  and  the 
Levite,  and  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the 
widow,  that  are  within  thy  gates," ^ — "Thou  shalt  not 
pervert  the  cause  of  the  stranger,  or  of  the  fatherless; 
and  thou  shalt  not  take  in  pledge  the  raiment  of  a 
widow;  but  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a 
bond-man  in  Egypt,  and  that  the  Eternal  thy  God 
redeemed  thee  from  thence;  therefore  do  I  command 
thee  to  do  this  thing.  When  thou  cuttest  down  thy 
harvest  in  thy  field,  and  forgcttcst  a  sheaf  in  the  field, 
thou  shalt  not  go  back  to  fetch  it;  for  the  stranger, 
for  the  fatherless,  and  for  the  widow  shall  it  be;  in 
order  that  the  Eternal  thy  God  may  bless  thee  in  all 
the  works  of  thy  hands.  When  thou  beatest  thy 
olive-tree,  thou  shalt  not  go  over  the  boughs  again; 
for  the  stranger,  for  the  fatherless,  and  for  the  widow 
shall  it  be.  When  thou  gatherest  the  grapes  of  thy 
vineyard,  thou  shalt  not  glean  the  small  fruit  afterward; 
for  the  stranger,  for  the  fatherless,  and  for  the  widow 

^  Deut.  xvi.  II.  2  Ibid.  xvi.  14. 


1 66      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

shall  it  be.  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast 
a  bond-man  in  the  land  of  Egypt;  therefore  do  I 
command  thee  to  do  this  thing."  * 

We  have  seen  that  Moses  taught  the  Israelites  to 
love  non-Israelites,  and  to  abstain  from  vexing  and 
oppressing  them,  because  God  loved  them;  let  us  now 
consider  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  If  the  founder  of 
Christianity  taught  his  followers  that  it  was  their  duty 
to  love  their  fellow-men  who  were  not  of  their  religion, 
and  to  refrain  from  vexing  and  oppressing  them, 
because  the  Almighty  Father  of  all  mankind  loved 
the  non- Christian  as  He  did  the  Christian,  then  did 
Jesus,  equally  with  Moses,  preach  the  lesson  of  love 
for  all  men;  but  if  Jesus  inculcated  the  doctrine  that 
the  non-Christian  would  be  rejected  by  him  and  by  God, 
and  would  be  devoted  by  them  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment, then  did  he  preach  a  lesson  that  was  not  calcu- 
lated to  instil  in  his  disciples  any  feeling  of  love  for 
the  rest  of  the  human  species. 

This  is  what  Jesus  taught.  "Whosoever  shall 
confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall 
deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Think  not  that  I  am 
come  to  send  peace  on  earth:  I  came  not  to  send 
peace,  but  a  sword.  For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at 
variance  against  his  father,  and  a  daughter  against 
her  mother,  and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her 
mother-in-law."^  Thus,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, peace  on  earth,  and  love  by  man  for  his  fellow- 
men,  were  not  what  Jesus  came  to  bring  to  mankind. 

*  Deut.  xxiv.  17-22.  2  Matt,  x,  32-35. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  1 67 

"Whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I 
also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  was 
the  dictum  of  Jesus;  and,  in  conformity  with  this  teach- 
ing, the  Christian  church  regards  all  non- Christians  as 
being  members  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  and  cheerfully 
and  self-complacently  devotes  them  to  eternal  tortures. 

In  this  doctrine  of  the  new  religion,  Gibbon  finds  a 
potent  cause  of  the  growth  of  the  Christian  church. 
He  says:  "The  careless  Polytheist,  assailed  by  new  and 
unexpected  terrors,  against  which  neither  his  priests 
nor  his  philosophers  could  afford  him  any  certain 
protection,  was  very  frequently  terrified  and  subdued 
by  the  menace  of  eternal  tortures.  His  fears  might 
assist  the  progress  of  his  faith  and  reason;  and  if  he 
could  once  persuade  himself  to  suspect  that  the  Chris- 
tian religion  might  possibly  be  true,  it  became  an  easy 
task  to  convince  him  that  it  was  the  safest  and  most 
prudent  party  that  he  could  possibly  embrace."^ 

A  Christian  writer  has  stated  that  the  two  leading 
popular  wants  of  the  age,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era,  were  the  worship  of  a  supreme  spiritual 
Godhead,  and  a  settled  conviction  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul;  and  that  Christianity  supplied  these  so 
authoritatively  that  it  could  not  fail  to  make  a  rapid 
progress.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  first  point, 
that  of  a  supreme  spiritual  Godhead ;  for  the  revelation 
of  One  Sole  God,  besides  whom  there  is  none  else, 
contained  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  is  as  far  above  the 
Christian  and  Platonic  theory  of  a  triumvirate  of  Gods 
as  the  latter  excels  the  polytheism  of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  mythologies. 

'  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  p.  35  (Bohn,  1854). 


1 68     A   JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

With  regard  to  the  second  point. — that  of  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul, — we  have  seen  that  it  is  claimed  by 
Gibbon  that  the  doctrine  of  the  future  Hfe  was  not 
taught  by  Moses,  and  was  unknown  to  the  Israelites 
until  after  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  and  first  received 
the  sanction  of  truth  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and 
his  Apostles.  Christian  divines  usually  go  further 
than  Gibbon,  and  claim  that  Hfe  and  immortality  were 
first  brought  to  light  by  the  Gospel;  but  their  preten- 
sion need  not  be  treated  seriously,  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself  represents  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  as 
being  perfectly  well  known  to  the  Jews,  and  the  cause 
of  contention  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees; 
the  former  maintaining,  and  the  latter  denying,  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  And  it  is  a  sufficient 
reply  to  Gibbon  and  all  other  Christian  writers  who 
claim  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  was  not  taught 
by  Moses,  to  point  out  that  the  New  Testament 
describes  Jesus  himself  as  proving  it  to  the  Sadducees 
out  of  the  books  of  Moses.  ''And  Jesus  answering  said 
unto  them.  Do  ye  not  therefore  err,  because  ye  know 
not  the  scriptures,  neither  the  power  of  God?  .  .  . 
And  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise:  have  ye  not 
read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spake 
unto  him  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ?  He  is  not  the 
God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the  living;  ye  there- 
fore do  greatly  err."^  And  it  is  evident  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  proved  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life 
from  Moses,  if  it  were  not  embodied  in  the  Law  of 
Moses.     Our  Christian  friends  cannot  assert  that  the 

*Mark  xii,  24,  26,  27. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 69 

immortality   of  the   soul  was   not   taught  by    Moses 
without  contradicting  Jesus. 

The  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  who  were  also  called 
the  Baithosees,  from  the  names  of  its  founders,  Sadoc 
and  Baithos,  had  its  beginning  at  a  time  when  the 
Jewish  people  were  living  in  friendly  relations  with 
the  Greeks  of  Syria  and  Egypt,  and  when  many  of  them 
were  greatly  influenced  by  Grecian  customs  and 
philosophy.  Sadoc  and  Baitjios  were  two  of  the 
scholars  of  Antigonus  of  Socho,  who  succeeded  the 
high  priest  Simon  the  Just  in  the  presidency  of  the 
Sanhedrim.  In  his  lectures  to  his  scholars,  Antigonus 
exhorted  them  to  serve  the  Almighty,  not  in  a  servile 
manner,  in  the  expectation  of  a  reward,  but  out  of  the 
love  and  fear  which  they  owed  Him.  ''Be  not  like 
unto  servants  who  serve  their  master  for  the  sake  of 
receiving  a  reward,"  were  the  words  of  Antigonus, 
"but  be  like  unto  servants  who  serve  their  master 
without  the  prospect  of  receiving  a  reward  (that  is, 
out  of  pure  love) ;  and  let  the  fear  of  Heaven  be  con- 
tinually upon  you." 

Sadoc  and  Baithos  appear  to  have  become  converts 
to  the  doctrines  of  Epicurus,  and  to  have  perverted 
the  meaning  of  the  maxim  of  Antigonus,  so  as  to  make 
it  useful  to  their  new  creed.  Drawing  from  it  the 
false  inference  that  there  were  no  rewards  at  all  after 
this  Hfe,  they  separated  themselves  from  the  school 
of  their  old  master,  and  taught  that  there  was  no 
resurrection  nor  future  state.  They  said:  "Shall  a 
laborer  work  all  day,  and  not  receive  his  wages  in 
the  evening?  Surely,  if  there  were  any  reward  or 
future  state  after  death,  or  if  the  dead  were  ever  to 


lyo      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

rise  again,  our  teacher  would  not  have  directed  us  to 
expect  no  reward."  And  as  many  persons  were 
perverted  by  them  to  this  doctrine,  there  thus  arose 
that  sect  among  the  Jews  that,  from  the  names  of  its 
founders,  was  called  the  Sadducees,  or  Baithosees. 


XVIII 

The  death  of  Alexander  the  Great  was  followed  by 
a  series  of  wars  between  his  generals  that  desolated 
Western  and  Central  Asia,  and  did  not  spare  Judea. 
Jerusalem  was  besieged  by  Ptolemy,  and  taken  by 
storm  on  a  Sabbath  day;  and,  of  the  surviving  inhabit- 
ants, over  one  hundred  thousand  were  carried  away 
by  him  into  Egypt.  During  the  twenty- two  years 
that  the  struggle  between  the  generals  of  Alexander 
lasted,  Palestine,  from  its  intermediate  situation 
between  the  two  powerful  kingdoms,  as  they  speedily 
became,  of  Syria,  northward,  and  of  Egypt,  southward, 
was  alternately  devastated  by  both.  But,  after  the 
battle  of  Ipsus  confirmed  Seleucus  in  the  possession 
of  Syria,  part  of  Asia  Minor,  and  the  immense  extent 
of  territory  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Indus,  and 
Ptolemy  in  that  of  Egypt,  Cyrene,  and  Lybia,  and 
restored  to  him  Coele-Syria  and  Palestine,  there 
ensued  a  period  of  about  eighty  years,  during  which 
the  Jews  prospered  and  throve  in  peace,  not  only  in 
Judea  and  Egypt,  but  also,  where  they  were  most 
numerous,  throughout  the  extensive  dominions  of  the 
Syro-Grecian  empire.  Under  the  mild  and  beneficent 
rule  of  the  first  three  Ptolemies,  the  Judeans,  in  par- 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  I7I 

ticular,  flourished  greatly.  Self-governed,  lightly  taxed, 
and  free  from  the  terrors  and  disturbances  of  war, 
peace  and  plenty  prevailed  throughout  their  land,  and 
their  numbers  and  wealth  equally  increased. 

Durmg  this  period  of  peace,  the  Jews  lived  in  close 
and  amicable  connection  with  the  Greeks,  both  of 
Egypt  and  Syria;  and  the  influence  which  the  latter 
exercised  over  the  former  gradually  became  very 
great.  Grecian  arts,  philosophy,  and  manners  acted 
on  the  susceptible  minds  of  the  warm-hearted  and 
imaginative  Jews  with  an  effect  all  the  more  powerful 
because  it  was  friendly.  No  attempts  were  made  by 
the  Greeks  to  coerce  the  Jews  into  any  deviation 
from  their  long-cherished  customs;  but  the  restraints 
of  the  Law  of  Moses  were  opposed  by  the  pleasures 
and  elegancies  of  Grecian  life,  and  the  authority  of  the 
Jewish  religion  was  weakened  by  the  insidious  and 
pernicious  influence  of  Grecian  philosophy. 

Among  the  various  systems  of  Grecian  philosophy 
the  one  that  found  most  favor  with  the  multitude  was 
that  of  Epicurus.  He  taught  that  the  greatest  good 
was  happiness,  and  that  the  chief  ingredient  of  happi- 
ness, nay,  the  greatest  good  itself,  was  pleasure,  and 
the  enjoyment  thereof.  He  held  up  pleasure  and  its 
enjoyments  as  the  sole  aim  of  all  human  exertions; 
and  met  and  removed  any  scruples  that  might  arise 
from  thinking  of  the  Deity,  by  the  assertion  that  the 
happiness  of  the  gods  themselves  consisted  in  the 
enjoyment  of  tranquiflity,  and  that  they  did  not  con- 
cern themselves  about  human  actions,  good  or  bad. 
Such  a  doctrine  was  likely  to  find  ready  acceptance 
with  many,  especially  among  Orientals,  who,  from  the 


172      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

influence  of  their  climate,  were  more  particularly 
disposed  to  the  enjoyment  of  sensual  pleasures.  Epi- 
curus, moreover,  apparently  yielded  great  homage  to 
virtue,  which  he  designated  as  the  chiefest  pleasure, 
because  it  carried  with  it  its  own  highest  recompense; 
and,  as  his  doctrine  apparently  proclaimed  the  suprem- 
acy of  virtue,  many  a  disciple  might  be  caught  by  it, 
even  from  among  those  who  cared  naught  for  sensual 
enjoyments.  But  the  Epicurean  supremacy  of  virtue 
was  a  mere  illusion,  because  the  main  object  of  the 
system  was  the  gratification  of  man's  desire  for  pleasure; 
and  the  lowest  propensities  of  man  had  the  same 
unquestionable  right  to  insist  on  being  gratified  that 
had  his  highest  and  purest  aspirations. 

It  was  in  opposition  to  the  pernicious  principles  of 
Epicurus,  and  in  consequence  of  their  prevalence,  that 
Antigonus  of  Socho  propounded  his  maxims,  which, 
as  he  was  president  of  the  Sanhedrim,  may  be  regarded 
as  an  expression  of  the  doctrine  of  orthodox  Judaism. 
"Be  not  like  servants  who  serve  their  master  on  con- 
dition of  receiving  a  reward,  but  be  like  servants 
who  serve  their  master  without  the  stipulation  of  any 
reward."  Antigonus  here  declared  that  man  should 
serve  God,  not  with  the  expectation  of  being  rewarded 
in  this  life  by  the  enjoyment  of  earthly  pleasures  and 
happiness,  but  out  of  love  for  the  Almighty,  and  from 
the  desire  to  be  obedient  to  His  will.  And  as  the 
climax  of  the  Epicurean  creed  was  that  the  gods  did 
not  take  any  heed  of  the  actions  of  men,  because  their 
doing  so  would  disturb  the  perfect  tranquillity  which 
constituted  their  beatitude,  Antigonus,  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  this  doctrine  of  Epicurus,  and  as  the  expres- 


SOME  QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 73 

sion  of  the  teachings  of  Judaism,  added  the  concluding 
portion  of  his  maxim,  "And  let  the  fear  of  Heaven 
be  continually  upon  you."  In  short,  Antigonus,  by 
his  maxims,  declared  that  God  did  take  cognizance 
of  human  deeds,  and  that  He  would  reward  the  pious 
man  and  punish  the  wicked;  that  the  Epicurean 
doctrine  of  divine  indifference  to  the  actions  of  men 
was  false;  that  man  should  not  look  for  or  desire 
earthly  rewards,  and  that  the  pleasures  of  this  world 
were  not  the  chiefest  good ;  but  that  the  greatest  happi- 
ness could  only  be  found  in  religion,  and  in  the 
hope  of  eternal  felicity  in  a  future  life,  which 
depended  on  a  willing  obedience  to  the  commands  of 
the  Almighty. 

Sadoc  and  Baithos  were  among  those  who  embraced 
the  doctrines  of  Epicurus;  and  they  sought,  with 
perverse  ingenuity,  to  strengthen  their  new  creed  by 
enhsting  in  its  service  the  very  maxims  with  which 
their  old  master,  Antigonus,  had  opposed  it.  And  as 
Epicurus  denied  the  immortahty  of  the  soul,  and 
taught  that  ''When  death  is,  we  are  not;  when  we 
are,  death  is  not";  so  Sadoc  and  Baithos  also  held  that 
the  soul  died  with  the  body,  and  that  there  was  no 
resurrection  of  the  dead. 

The  Sadducees  gradually  became  a  political  party, 
rather  than  a  religious  sect,  among  the  Jews;  and,  as 
poHtical  partisans,  they  became  a  powerful,  and  for 
some  time  a  dominant,  body  in  Judea.  As  a  political 
party,  they  attracted  attention;  had  they  remained 
only  a  religious  sect,  history  would  probably  have 
taken  no  notice  of  them.  And  they  made  no  attempt 
to   reconcile   the   doctrines   of   Epicurus,   which   they 


174      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

had  adopted,  with  the  letter  of  the  Law  of  Moses, 
until  their  desperate  efforts  to  get  rid  of  that  law  had 
completely  failed. 

The  great  majority  of  the  Jewish  people,  who 
received  the  name  of  Pharisees,  and  constituted,  in 
fact,  the  Jewish  nation,  never  accepted  the  Epicurean 
views  of  the  Sadducees,  but  remained  true  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Law  of  Moses;  and,  as  a  part  of  that 
law,  always  continued  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortahty  of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  The  accounts  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
that  are  given  by  Gibbon  and  other  Christian  writers 
are  erroneous,  and  are  not  supported  by  any  of  the 
Jewish  authorities,  who  all  agree  in  tracing  the  origin 
of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees  to  the  perversion  of  the 
maxims  of  Antigonus  by  his  Epicurean  disciples, 
Sadoc  and  Baithos. 

Gibbon's  statement  that  the  Pharisees,  that  is,  the 
Jewish  people,  borrowed,  under  the  name  of  tradi- 
tions, the  doctrines  of  fate  and  predestination,  of 
angels  and  spirits,  and  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments,  and  other  new  articles  of  belief,  which 
he  does  not  specify,  from  the  philosophy  or  religions 
of  the  Eastern  nations,  is  most  absurd.  Not  one 
article  of  the  Jewish  religion  can  be  instanced  that 
has  been  borrowed  from  the  philosophical  or  religious 
system  of  any  other  nation,  either  of  ancient  or  modern 
times;  they  are  all  based  on  the  Word  of  God,  con- 
tained in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

The  doctrine  of  fate  or  predestination,  as  it  is  gen- 
erally understood,  that  is,  the  foreordination  by  God 
oi  everything  that  comes  to  pass,  and,  particularly, 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 75 

the  predestination  of  certain  persons  to  everlasting 
life,  and  of  all  others  to  eternal  torture  and  death,  has 
never  formed  part  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  Law 
of  Moses  inculcates  the  doctrine  of  man's  free  agency, 
that  is  expressed  in  the  phrase  of  the  Jewish  sages, 
"Everything  is  in  the  hands  or  power  of  Heaven, 
except  the  fear  of  Heaven."  This  teaches  that  all 
things  are  created  and  ordained  by  the  Almighty, 
except  the  actions  of  man.  The  actions  of  man  are 
not  predestinated,  but  arc  the  immediate  production 
of  his  own  free  will;  and  man  should  therefore  pay 
particular  regard  to  his  words  and  actions,  because  he 
will  be  obliged  to  give  an  account  of  them  hereafter. 
For  his  good  deeds  he  will  receive  a  reward,  and 
punishment  for  his  bad  ones;  for  he  is  absolute  master 
of  them  all,  without  any  compulsion  whatever.  *'I 
call  heaven  and  earth  as  witnesses  against  you  this 
day,"  said  the  prophet  Moses,  ''that  I  have  set  before 
you  life  and  death,  the  blessing  and  the  curse;  there- 
fore choose  thou  life,  in  order  that  thou  mayest  live, 
both  thou  and  thy  seed."  ^ 

The  Jews  believe  in  predestination  to  a  certain 
limited  extent ;  for  they  hold  that  it  is  foreordained  by 
the  Almighty  whether  a  man  will  be  wise  or  foolish, 
weak  or  strong,  rich  or  poor.  Wisdom,  power  and 
riches  are  regarded  as  being  the  direct  gifts  of  Provi- 
dence, and  therefore  foreordained ;  but  the  manner  in 
which  a  man  will  employ  and  make  use  of  these  gifts 
is  not  ordained.  "Thus  saith  the  Eternal,  Let  not  the 
wise  glory  in  his  wisdom,  neither  let  the  mighty  glory 
in  his  might,  let  not  the  rich  glory  in  his  riches:  But 
1  Deut.  XXX.  19. 


176     A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

let  him  that  glorieth,  glory  in  this,  that  he  understand- 
eth  and  knoweth  Me,  that  I  am  the  Eternal  who 
exercise  loving-kindness,  justice,  and  righteousness 
on  the  earth;  for  in  these  things  I  dehght,  saith  the 
Eternal."  ^  In  these  verses  the  prophet  Jeremiah 
teaches  us  that  those  who  are  possessed  of  wisdom, 
riches,  and  power  should  not  glory  in  them,  for  they 
are  not  of  their  own  acquiring,  but  are  the  gifts  of  the 
Almighty;  but  the  manner  in  which  these  gifts  are 
to  be  employed,  God  has  been  pleased  not  to  ordain, 
but  has  left  the  way  in  which  they  will  be  used  to  man's 
own  free  will.  For  this  reason,  and  in  order  that  we 
may  choose  the  good  and  avoid  all  evil  use  of  them, 
Jeremiah  counsels  us  to  know  and  understand  the 
Eternal,  that  is,  to  study  and  contemplate  the  attributes 
of  the  Supreme  Being;  and  as  He  continually  exercises 
loving- kindness,  justice,  and  righteousness  on  the 
earth,  so  should  man  employ  the  gifts  that  God  has 
bestowed  on  him  to  the  same  just,  good,  and  beneficent 
purposes. 

"Hast  thou  considered  My  servant  Job,  that  there 
is  none  Hke  him  on  the  earth,  a  perfect  and  an  upright 
man,  one  that  feareth  God,  and  escheweth  evil?" 
Here,  again,  we  are  taught  that  man  is  absolute  master 
of  his  own  actions,  whether  they  be  good  or  bad; 
for,  otherwise,  in  what  could  have  consisted  the  ex- 
traordinary merit  of  Job,  that  it  should  cause  him  to 
be  so  highly  praised  by  the  Almighty?  If  the  good 
works  of  Job  were  the  result  of  predestination, — if 
they  were  not  the  effect  of  his  own  choice,  and  of  his 
own    free-will, — then  would  he  have  been  no  more 

1  Jcre.  ix.  22,  23.  ^  Job  i.  8. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 77 

entitled  to  praise  than  a  puppet,  or  a  piece,  of  machin- 
ery; for  he  would  not  have  had  the  power  to  act  in 
any  other  way  than  he  did.  As  the  Jews,  therefore, 
do  not  beUeve  in  the  doctrine  of  fate  or  predestination, 
as  our  Christian  friends  understand  it,  Gibbon's 
statement  that  the  Pharisees  borrowed  that  doctrine 
from  the  philosophy  or  religions  of  the  Eastern  nations 
is  simply  absurd. 

Remarkable,  however,  as  is  Gibbon's  statement 
about  the  way  in  which  the  Jews  acquired  their  sup- 
posed belief  in  fate  and  predestination,  it  is  trite  and 
commonplace  when  compared  with  the  information  he 
gives  us  about  the  manner  in  which  they  obtained 
their  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  angels  and  spirits. 
If  the  Jews  knew  nothing  about  angels,  and  did  not 
believe  in  their  existence,  until  the  Pharisees  borrowed 
the  idea  from  the  religious  systems  of  other  nations, 
then  they  could  have  known  nothing  about  their 
Scriptures  until  long  after  their  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonian Captivity ;  or  else,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  must 
have  been  afterward  altered  so  as  to  include  the 
numerous  mentions  they  now  contain  of  the  existence 
of  angels,  and  of  the  part  they  played  in  the  history 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  from  the  time  of  their  fore- 
father Abraham.  If  we  are  to  credit  Gibbon,  it  was 
not  until  after  the  Pharisees  had  acquired  some  knowl- 
edge about  angels  from  the  other  nations  of  the  East 
that  the  Jews  came  to  hear  about  and  believe  in  the 
existence  of  the  angels  of  the  Lord  who  are  so  frequently 
spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament! 

The  amount  of  nonsense  of  which  even  the  wisest 
and  most  learned  of  our  Christian  friends  are  capable 


178    A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

of  delivering,  and  do  disburden  themselves,  whenever 
they  undertake  to  speak  or  write  about  the  people  and 
religion  of  Israel,  is  most  incredible.  It  appears  as  if, 
on  these  subjects,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  any  of 
those  who  labor  in  Christ's  vineyard,  whether  they  be 
clergy  or  laity,  to  make  any  statement  that  can  be 
reUed  on,  or  that  is  not  colored  by  the  prejudices 
that  are  innate  in  them,  and  which  must  find  expres- 
sion. 


XIX 


According  to  the  New  Testament,*  it  was  in  the 
revelation  made  by  the  Almighty  to  Moses,  ''I  am  the 
God  of  thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of 
Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,"  ^  that  Jesus  found  incon- 
trovertible proof  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  and  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  because  God  was  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  the  God  of  the  living.  The  argument  of  Jesus 
was,  that  although  the  bodies  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  had  undergone  death  and  corruption,  yet  their 
immortal  parts,  their  souls,  had  returned  to  God,  and 
were  still  living.  Had  their  death  been  the  final  end 
of  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  the  Almighty  might  have 
said  to  Moses  that  He  had  been  their  God,  but  He 
would  not  have  described  Himself  as  still  being  their 
God;  and  Moses  would  not  have  made  use  of  an 
expression  that  presupposed  their  continued  existence. 

"And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 

1  Mark  xii.  24,  26,  27.  ^  Exod.  iii.  6 


SOME   QUESTIONS  ANSWERED  1 79 

after  our  likeness.  .  .  .  And  God  created  man  in 
His  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him."  ^ 
The  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God  cannot  refer 
to  the  body  of  man,  which,  unUke  God,  is  subject  to 
decay  and  death;  it  cannot  mean  that  man  was  physi- 
cally, and  in  outward  shape  and  appearance,  made  to 
resemble  his  Creator,  for  God  is  a  spirit,  and  has  no 
material  form,  and  we  cannot  compare  Him  to  any- 
thing that  exists;  but  it  does  mean,  and  can  only 
mean,  that  the  spiritual  part  of  man,  his  soul,  was 
made  after  the  divine  image.  In  this  account,  then, 
of  the  creation  of  man,  we  are  taught  by  Moses  that 
the  soul  of  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and, 
therefore,  that  it  was,  like  God,  incorruptible  and 
undying. 

We  are  told  by  Moses  that  God  said  to  Abraham, 
"And  thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers  in  peace;  thou  shalt 
be  buried  in  a  good  old  age."^  Here,  again,  Moses 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  for  the  words 
"thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers"  necessarily  presuppose 
the  fact  of  a  continuance  of  existence  after  death,  in 
respect  both  to  Abraham  and  his  ancestors. 

The  sentence,  "Thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers  in 
peace,"  cannot  mean  that  the  Almighty  only  intended 
to  promise  Abraham  that  he  would  die  in  peace,  that 
is,  that  his  death  would  not  be  violent  or  painful, 
but  peaceful  and  painless,  for  then  the  words,  "Thou 
shalt  die  in  peace,"  would  have  been  more  appropriate; 
and  they  are  the  words  that  should  have  been  used 
to  convey  such  a  meaning.  Nor  could  the  expression 
"Thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers"  have  been  intended 
^  Gen.  i.  26,  27.  2  /j^-^  ^v.  15. 


l8o     A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

as  a  promise  to  Abraham  that  he  would  be  buried 
in  the  burial-place  of  his  ancestors,  for  his  father 
died  in  Charan,  and  his  grandfather  in  their  ancestral 
home,  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees;  and  Abraham  not  only 
took  no  steps  to  provide  for  his  own  burial  in  either  of 
these  places,  but  even  guarded  against  such  a  contin- 
gency by  purchasing  the  cave  of  Machpelah  as  a 
possession  for  a  burying-place  in  the  land  which  God 
had  given  him.  "Thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers  in 
peace"  can,  therefore,  only  be  understood  as  a  promise 
made  by  God  to  Abraham  that  he  would,  as  a  reward 
for  his  virtue  and  faith,  enjoy  a  continuance  of  exist- 
ence in  happiness  after  death,  with  those  of  his  fore- 
fathers whose  piety  had  entitled  them  to  share  in  the 
bHss  of  the  future  life.  We  thus  learn,  from  these 
words  of  Moses,  that  the  doctrine  of  life  after  death, 
and  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  was  known  to  the 
people  of  Israel  from  the  time  of  their  great  progenitor 
Abraham,  and  that  it  was  also  known  to  the  latter's 
ancestors.  The  allusions,  indeed,  made  by  Moses  to 
the  fact  of  there  being  an  existence  beyond  the  grave 
are  made  in  such  a  matter-of-course  way  that  we  are 
forced  to  conclude  from  them  that  it  was  so  fully 
recognized  and  established  a  truth,  in  his  time  and  to 
his  people,  as  to  require  from  him  neither  teaching  nor 
comment.  The  doctrine  of  a  future  life  is  as  integral 
a  part,  and  as  established  a  principle,  of  the  Law  of 
Moses,  as  are  those  of  the  Unity  of  God,  or  the  free 
agency  of  man,  or  the  doctrine  of  non-vicarious  punish- 
ment. 

After  the  children  of  Israel  had  sinned  in  the  matter 
of  the  golden  calf,  "Moses  returned  unto  the  Eternal, 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  l8l 

and  said,  Oh,  this  people  hath  sinned  a  great  sin,  and 
they  have  made  themselves  gods  of  gold.  Yet  now, 
if  Thou  wilt  forgive  their  sin — ;  but  if  not,  blot  me 
out,  I  pray  Thee,  from  Thy  book  which  Thou  hast 
written.  And  the  Eternal  said  unto  Moses,  Whoso- 
ever hath  sinned  against  Me,  him  will  I  blot  out  from 
My  book."  ^  On  this  occasion  Moses  prayed  to  the 
Almighty  to  forgive  the  heinous  sin  of  which  the 
Israehtes  had  been  guilty,  in  making  and  worshipping 
the  molten  calf;  and,  if  their  sin  were  characterized 
by  too  great  a  degree  of  wickedness  to  permit  God  to 
pardon  it,  then  Moses  offered  himself  for  punishment 
in  their  place,  and  prayed  that  he  himself  should  be 
blotted  out  of  the  book  which  the  Eternal  had  written. 
But  God  refused  to  accept  the  sacrifice  which  Moses 
offered  to  make  of  himself  in  atonement  for  the  sin  of 
others;  the  Almighty  would  not  permit  a  vicarious 
atonement,  nor  would  He  inflict  a  vicarious  punish- 
ment, for  such  an  action  was  incompatible  with  the 
justice  of  Heaven.  ''Whosoever  hath  sinned  against 
Me,  him  will  I  blot  out  from  My  book."  We  are 
here  taught  that  the  Eternal  will  blot  out  from  His 
book  those  who  have  sinned  against  Him;  and,  con- 
versely, that  He  will  not  blot  out  those  who  have  not 
sinned  against  Him.  The  book  referred  to  cannot, 
therefore,  be  a  book  in  which  God  inscribes  for  life  in 
this  world  only  those  who  have  not  sinned  against 
Him;  for,  if  it  were,  then  must  all  men,  the  non-sinners 
as  well  as  the  sinners,  be  sooner  or  later  blotted  out 
from  it,  since  no  man  can  hope  to  escape  death  in  this 
world.     The  book  written  by  God,  to  which  Moses 

*  Exod.  xxxii.  31-33. 


1 82     A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

referred,  must,  consequently,  have  been  the  book  of 
Hfe  eternal,  the  book  in  which  God  inscribed  for 
everlasting  life,  not  the  bodies,  but  the  souls  of  all  who 
had  not  sinned  against  Him,  or  who,  having  sinned, 
had  repented  and  turned  from  their  sins.  So,  here, 
again,  we  have  another  declaration  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  of  a  life  beyond  the  grave,  made  by 
Moses. 

''I  call  heaven  and  earth  as  witnesses  against  you 
this  day,  that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  the 
blessing  and  the  curse;  therefore  choose  thou  life,  in 
order  that  thou  may  est  live,  both  thou  and  thy  seed."  * 
In  this  exhortation  made  by  Moses,  we  have  another 
reference  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  doc- 
trine of  a  future  life;  for,  in  urging  the  people  of 
Israel  to  love  the  Eternal  their  God,  to  walk  in  His 
ways,  and  to  keep  His  commandments.  His  statutes, 
and  His  ordinances,  in  order  that  they  might  live ;  and 
in  counselling  them  not  to  suffer  themselves  to  be  drawn 
away  from  their  God,  not  to  bow  down  to  other  gods, 
nor  serve  them,  in  which  case  they  would  surely  perish ; 
in  setting  before  them  life  and  the  good,  death  and 
the  evil,  and  exhorting  them  to  choose  life, — Moses 
was  teaching  them  that  they  had  the  power  to  choose 
life  and  to  avoid  death,  not  for  their  bodies,  but  for 
their  souls.  Life  for  their  bodies  it  was  not  in  their 
power  to  make  a  choice  of,  for  death  is  the  inevitable 
lot  of  all;  but  life  for  their  souls,  hfe  eternal,  they 
could  choose,  and  could  secure,  by  loving  the  Eternal 
their  God,  and  hearkening  to  His  voice,  and  cleaving 
unto  Him. 

*  Deut.  XXX.  19. 


SOME   QUESTIONS    ANSWERED  183 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  many  instances  in  which 
allusion  is  made  by  Moses,  in  the  most  matter-of-course 
way,  to  the  doctrine  of  a  future  Hfe  and  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  as  being  a  truth  well  known  to  the 
people  of  Israel;  and,  did  time  and  space  permit,  we 
might  notice  scores  of  other  instances  in  which  the 
same  truth  is  referred  to,  in  the  same  unmistakable 
way,  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
To  all  those,  then,  of  our  Christian  friends  who  pretend 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  is  not  taught 
by  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  we  may  apply  the  remark 
made  by  Jesus  to  the  Sadducees,  when  he  proved  to 
them,  from  the  book  of  Moses,  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead, — "Ye  do  greatly  err,  because  ye  know  not  the 
Scriptures."*  And  the  same  observation  may  be 
made  about  them  concerning  all  the  questions  of 
faith  and  doctrine  that  are  at  issue  between  them  and 
the  Jews. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  decision  upon  those  questions, 
it  is  not  necessary  for  the  Jews  to  search  for  reasons 
to  account  for  the  spread  of  Christianity,  any  more 
than  for  that  of  Islamism;  for  the  propagation  of 
neither  of  these  religions  is  a  proof  that  either  of  them 
is  from  God.  Both  of  them  inculcate  an  excellent 
morality,  for  both  of  them  have  drawn  their  best 
moral  precepts  from  the  Old  Testament;  both  of  them 
have  contributed — Mahometanism  perhaps  more  than 
Christianity — to  the  abolishment  of  idolatry ;  and  both 
of  them  mark  advances  in  the  progress  of  mankind 
toward   Judaism,  which  is  the  religion,  and  the  only 

^  Mark  xii.  24,  27. 


184      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

religion,  that  does  emanate  from  the  Almighty,  and 
therefore  teaches,  in  a  way  that  no  system  invented 
by  man  can  do,  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  universal  brotherhood  of  man.  It  is  Judaism, 
and  not  Christianity  nor  Mahometanism,  of  which  it  is 
asserted  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  it  will  one  day 
become  the  sole  religion  of  all  mankind;  and  it  is 
through  Judaism  and  the  Jews  that  the  Gentile  world 
has  acquired,  and  is  still  being  taught,  its  knowledge 
of  God,  and  of  the  grand  laws  which  He  has  framed 
for  the  government  and  moral  and  spiritual  welfare 
and  happiness  of  all  His  children. 

The  Christian  theory  of  a  triumvirate  of  gods,  and 
of  a  Fourth  Being,  or  Evil  Spirit,  possessed  of  power 
almost  equal  to  that  of  their  three  gods,  is  not  the 
rehgion  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  teach  us  that 
there  is  but  One  God,  the  Eternal,  besides  whom 
there  is  no  one  else.  The  Christian  theory  cannot 
be  reconciled  with  the  declaration  made  by  the  Eternal, 
through  His  prophet  Moses,  "See  now  that  I,  even 
I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god  with  Me;  I  alone  kill, 
and  I  make  ahve;  I  wound,  and  I  heal;  and  no  one 
can  deUver  out  of  My  hand  "  ^ ;  it  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  teaching  of  Moses,  ''Know  therefore  this 
day,  and  reflect  in  thy  heart,  that  the  Eternal  is  the 
God  in  the  heavens  above,  and  on  the  earth  beneath; 
there  is  none  else"  ^;it  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the 
address  of  King  David,  ''Therefore  art  Thou  great, 
O  Eternal  God,  for  there  is  none  like  Thee,  and  there 
is  no  god  beside  Thee,  in  accordance  with  all  that 
we  have  heard  with  our  ears"  ^;  nor  with  the  prayer 

*  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  ^  Jhid.^  iv.  39.  ^  ^  Sam.  vii.  22. 


SOME   QUESTIONS   ANSWERED  1 85 

of  King  Solomon,  "O  Eternal,  the  God  of  Israel, 
there  is  no  god  like  Thee,  in  the  heavens  above,  and 
on  the  earth  beneath,  Thou  who  kcepest  the  covenant 
and  the  kindness  for  Thy  servants  that  walk  before 
Thee  with  all  their  heart"  ^;  and  it  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  declaration  made  by  Isaiah,  ''Thus  hath 
said  the  Eternal,  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer, 
the  Eternal  of  Hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last; 
and  beside  Me  there  is  no  god."^  In  short,  the 
Christian  theory  cannot  be  made  to  agree  with  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  are  consistent  throughout, 
and  speak  of  only  One  God,  the  Eternal,  and  declare, 
times  almost  without  number,  that  He  is  the  Only 
God,  and  the  Only  Creator,  Ruler  and  Preserver  of 
the  world,  and  the  Only  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of 
mankind,  and  that  beside  Him  there  is  none  else. 

We  are  told  in  the  New  Testament  that  when  the 
Apostle  Paul  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  while  he  prayed 
in  the  Temple,  he  was  in  a  trance,  and  saw  Jesus 
saying  to  him,  "  Make  haste,  and  get  thee  quickly  out  of 
Jerusalem;  for  they  (the  Jews)  will  not  receive  thy 
testimony  concerning  me";  and  that  Jesus  further 
said  to  him,  ''Depart;  for  I  will  send  thee  far  hence 
unto  the  Gentiles."^  There  is  an  important  and 
valuable  practical  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  this  advice 
and  these  instructions  said  to  have  been  given  by  Jesus 
to  the  great  champion  of  his  church,  that  its  lesser 
lights  would  do  well  to  study,  profit  by,  and  apply ; 
and  to  their  earnest  attention  we  respectfully  com- 
mend it. 

1 1  Kings  viii.  23.  '  Isaiah  xliv.  6. 

^  Acts  xxii.  17,  18,  21. 


AN  ANSWER  TO  CHRISTIAN 
EVANGELISTS 


The  majority  of  Jews  in  Protestant  countries  are 
familiar  with  the  kind  of  tracts  and  periodicals  that 
are  published  by  the  societies  for  the  conversion  of 
Israelites  to  Christianity;  for  there  are  never  lacking 
those  among  our  Christian  friends  who  do  not  consider 
it  to  be  inconsistent  with  good  breeding  and  manners 
to  force  these  publications  upon  the  notice  of  their 
Jewish  acquaintances,  although  knowing  them  to  be 
not  wanted  or  desired,  and  certainly  not  asked  for,  by 
the  latter.  These  publications  are  all  of  the  same 
general  character;  they  all  ignore  the  numerous 
unequivocal  declarations  contained  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God,  besides 
whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  none  else;  they  all  avoid  any  attempt  to  show 
how  those  declarations  can  be  reconciled — if  it  be 
possible  to  reconcile  them — with  the  Platonic  theory 
of  a  trinity  of  Gods  that  Christianity  has  adopted; 
and  they  all  present  us  with  arguments  and  deductions 
that  are  incompatible  with  these  declarations  of  the 
Eternal,  and  are  therefore  unfounded  and  valueless. 
These  Christian  tracts  and  publications  contain  nothing 


AN  ANSWER  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS         1 87 

else  than  a  tissue  of  misapplications  and  perversions  of 
the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  and  they  all  exhibit 
so  much  disregard  or  ignorance  of  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  those  Scriptures,  and  such  want  of  knowl- 
edge of  the  principles  and  teachings  of  Judaism,  that 
the  attempts  of  their  authors  to  tell  the  Jews  what  their 
religion  was  prior  to  and  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  what  it  is 
at  the  present  time,  and  what  it  ought  to  be,  are  very 
amusing. 

As  one  who  has  been  favored  with  a  fair  supply  of 
these  undesired  effusions  of  mistaken  Christian  zeal,  it 
cannot  be  deemed  out  of  place  for  the  writer  to  state 
that  he  has  not  found,  in  any  one  of  the  many  publi- 
cations that  have  been  sent  him,  one  single  argument 
in  favor  of  the  Christian  theories  of  the  divinity  and 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  that,  were  the  subject  one  of  less 
supreme  importance,  could  be  held  worthy  of  notice 
and  reply. 

In  these  publications  we  find  it  claimed  by  their 
Christian  authors  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  reveal 
the  existence  of  a  pluraUty  in  the  Godhead, — that  is, 
that  they  establish  the  existence  of  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  gods  separate  and  distinguishable  from 
the  Eternal;  but  these  Christian  writers  make  no 
attempt  to  explain  why,  if  such  were  the  case,  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  should  so  emphatically  assert  the 
contrary,  and  continually  affirm  and  reaffirm,  from 
first  to  last,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God,  beside 
whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  none  else.  These  Christian  Evangelists  claim 
that  it  is  the  will  of  the  Almighty  that  the  Jews  should 
worship  Jesus  as  their  Lord  and  Saviour;    but  they 


1 88      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

make  no  attempt  to  explain  why,  if  such  were  the 
design  of  the  Eternal,  He  should  have  declared  the 
contrary,  and  have  commanded,  *'I  am  the  Eternal 
thy  God;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."^ 
— "I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God  from  the  land  of  Egypt; 
and  thou  shalt  know  no  god  but  Me,  and  there  is  no 
saviour  besides  Me."  ^  These  Christian  Evangelists 
pretend  that  Moses  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of 
gods;  but  they  fail  to  explain  why,  if  such  were  the 
case,  the  Great  Lawgiver  should  have  proclaimed  the 
contrary,  and  have  not  only  said,  ''Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  One,"^  but  have 
also  declared  that  there  is  no  god  with  the  Eternal 
and  none  else .  beside  Him.  ^  These  Christian  Evan- 
gelists quote  verses  from  the  Psalms,  and  claim  that 
they  are  the  prophetic  utterances  of  King  David, 
establishing  the  Sonship  and  divinity  of  Jesus,  but  they 
make  no  attempt  to  explain  why,  if  such  were  the 
true  import  of  those  verses,  the  Royal  Psalmist  should 
also  have  maintained  the  contrary  and  have  declared, 
"Therefore  art  Thou  great,  O  Eternal  God;  for  there 
is  none  like  Thee,  and  there  is  no  god  beside  Thee,  in 
accordance  with  all  that  we  have  heard  with  our  ears."  ' 
Christian  Evangelists  cite  a  verse  in  Proverbs,  in 
support  of  their  claim  of  the  Sonship  and  divinity  of 
Jesus;  but  they  fail  to  explain  why,  if  such  were  its 
true  interpretation.  King  Solomon  should  also  have 
declared  the  contrary,  and  have  prayed,  ''O  Eternal, 
the  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  god  Uke  Thee,  in  the 
heavens  above,  and  on  the  earth  beneath." '     Christian 

^  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.  2  Rosea  xiii.  4.  ^  Deut.  vi.  4. 

■*  Deut,  iv.  35,  39.  ^  2  Sam.  vii.  22.  *  i  Kings  viii.  23. 


AN  ANSWER  TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS         1 89 

Evangelists  quote  verses  from  Isaiah,  as  prophesying 
the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  and  estabhshing 
his  divinity;  but  they  cannot  explain  why,  if  such 
were  the  true  meaning  of  the  words  of  Isaiah,  that 
prophet  also  should  have  asserted  the  contrary,  and 
have  declared,  "Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  the  King  of 
Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Eternal  of  Hosts,  I  am 
the  first,  and  I  am  the  last,  and  beside  Me  there  is  no 
god."^— ''I  am  the  Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else 
beside  Me  there  is  no  god."^— "I  am  God,  and  there 
is  none  else;  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  Me."^ 
*'I,  even  I,  am  the  Eternal,  and  beside  Me  there  is 


II 


For  reasons  they  have  never  explained.  Christian 
Evangelists  have  never  ventured  to  take  any  notice  of 
the  explicit  denials  of  the  truth  of  their  doctrines  by 
all  the  writers  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
upon  whose  picked-out  words,  isolated  and  wrenched 
from  the  meaning  of  the  context,  they  endeavor  to 
construct  the  fabric  of  their  religion.  If  the  only  object 
that  Christian  Evangelists  have  in  view  is  to  prove 
that  their  side  of  the  question  is  the  correct  one,  and 
for  that  purpose  to  try  to  make  it  appear  that  their 
theory  of  a  trinity  of  gods  has  the  sanction  and  support 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  then  their  policy  of  ignoring 
every  statement  that  contradicts  their  theory  is  pos- 

1  Isaiah  xliv.  6.  ^  Ibid.  xlv.  5. 

*  Ibid.  xlvi.  9.  *  Ibid,  xliii.  11. 


I  go      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

sibly  the  only  one  they  can  adopt;  but  if,  as  we  would 
like  to  beheve,  our  Christian  brethren  are  sometimes 
animated  by  the  higher,  nobler,  and  more  honest 
motive  of  ascertaining  the  truth,  whatever  it  may  be, 
and  of  making  it  known,  then  their  system  of  disregard- 
ing every  declaration  that  is  opposed  to  the  trinitarian 
doctrine  of  their  creed  cannot  be  understood.  What- 
ever the  explanation  of  this  Christian  peculiarity  may 
be,  the  fact  remains  that,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles 
down  to  the  present  day,  Christian  Evangelists  have 
never  dared  to  draw  attention  to  the  many  declarations 
made  by  the  Eternal,  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no 
god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  no  one  else, 
and  to  tell  us,  if  they  can,  how  their  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  the  second  and  third  persons  of  their  Trinity 
can  be  reconciled  with  those  declarations.  From  the 
New  Testament  down  to  their  latest  tract  and  publi- 
cation, Christian  Evangelists  have  always  shown 
themselves  unable  to  face  and  discuss  the  real  question 
that  is  at  issue  between  them  and  the  Jews, — between 
them  and  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, — between  them  and 
the  Eternal.  Bring  any  Christian  Evangelists  to  the 
point,  and  ask  them  to  explain  how  their  belief  in  their 
so-called  trinity  of  gods  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
many  reiterated  assertions  contained  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God  and 
Saviour,  to  the  total  and  absolute  exclusion  of  all  other 
gods  and  every  other  saviour,  and  they  are  unable  to 
give  a  reply;  they  have  to  shelter  themselves  behind 
the  vain  plea  that  their  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  gods  is 
a  matter  revealed  to  their  faith,  but  not  to  their  rea- 
son for  explanation  or  speculation.     Revealed  to  their 


AN    ANSWER  TO    CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS         IQT 

faith,  indeed!  and  by  whom?  Not  by  the  Eternal; 
for  He  has  declared  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no 
god  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him  and  none  else. 
Not  by  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament;  for  they 
also  declare  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God,  besides 
whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  Hke  Him, 
and  no  one  else.  The  doctrine  of  a  trinity  or  trium- 
virate of  gods  was  revealed  to  Christian  faith  and 
credulity  by  those  founders  of  Christian  dogma  who 
identified  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Logos  of  the 
Platonic  system,  and  who,  adopting  the  Platonic  theory 
of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  the  Logos,  found  them- 
selves obliged  to  give  Jesus,  as  the  pretended  creator 
of  the  universe,  a  character  and  importance  commen- 
surate to  his  supposed  work. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  human  origin  of  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  their  religion.  Christians,  from 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  have  been  unable  to  agree 
among  themselves  as  to  what  are  the  essential  truths 
of  Christianity.  To-day,  after  nearly  nineteen  hundred 
years  of  groping  in  the  dark,  the  Greek,  Roman  Cath- 
oHc,  and  Protestant  churches  are  bitterly  opposed  to 
one  another  in  matters  of  doctrine;  the  members  of 
either  one  of  these  churches  deny  the  possession  of 
religious  truth  and  the  possibiUty  of  salvation  to  the 
followers  of  the  others;  and  yet  there  is  not  a  petty 
sect  among  them  whose  ministers  do  not,  in  their 
self-conceit,  consider  themselves  possessed  of  the  only 
exclusive  road  to  salvation,  and  to  have  been  given  a 
heaven-born  mission  for  the  conversion  of  Israel  to  the 
worship  of  another  than  the  God  of  Israel. 

Put  plainly,  the  question  is  this :   the  Hebrew  Script- 


192      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

ures  declare  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God  and 
Saviour,  besides  whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour, 
none  like  Him  and  none  else;  and  Christianity  main- 
tains the  contrary,  and  claims  that  there  are  other 
gods  and  another  saviour  than  the  Eternal  alone, — 
that  there  are  also  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  question  at  issue  is  clear  and  distinct,  however 
Christian  Evangelists  may  seek  to  evade  and  disguise 
it;  and  it  is  a  question  about  which  there  can  be  no 
compromise.  If  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  right, 
then  Christianity  must  be  wrong;  if  Christianity  be 
right,  then  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  wrong.  And 
since  Christianity  admits  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
are  inspired  of  God,  and  contain  the  revealed  Word  of 
God,  it  follows  that  our  Christian  friends  put  them- 
selves in  a  position  which  is  neither  logical  nor  honest. 
If  they  were  to  maintain,  as  a  part  and  the  basis  of 
their  trinitarian  doctrine,  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
are  wrong,  and  not  inspired  of  God,  when  they  declare 
that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God  and  Saviour,  besides 
whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  none  else,  one  could  understand  their  position,  and 
grant  that  they  might  be  honest,  though  mistaken  in 
their  belief;  but  when  Christians  profess  to  beheve 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  then 
labor  to  pervert  them,  in  order  to  make  it  appear  that 
those  Scriptures  reveal  the  existence  and  justify  the 
worship  of  other  gods  and  another  saviour  than  the 
Eternal  alone,  then  the  credit  for  honesty  and  com- 
mon sense  in  religious  matters  that  our  Christian 
friends  might  otherwise  have  had  cannot  be  accorded 
them. 


AN  ANSWER  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS        1 93 

Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Eternal;  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
not  the  Eternal.  Do  our  Christian  brethren  imagine 
that  the  Hebrew  language  is  so  Hmited  in  its  vocabulary, 
or  that  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  had  so  poor 
a  command  of  that  language,  that  they  were  not  able 
to  have  stated  and  explained,— in  far  plainer  words 
and  in  stronger  terms  than  any  Christian  churchmen 
can  give  expression  to, — the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity- 
ship  of  God,  or  of  a  triumvirate  of  gods,  if  there  were, 
in  their  belief,  such  other  gods  and  another  saviour 
than  the  Eternal  alone,  as  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  the  Christian  creed?  Or  is  the  Christian  mind  so 
impenetrably  dense,  and  the  Christian  heart  so  stub- 
bornly perverse,  in  matters  of  religion,  that  from 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  other  response  be 
had  to  the  repeated  declarations  made  by  the  Eternal, 
that  beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour, 
none  Hke  Him,  and  none  else,  than  the  idolatrous 
worship  of  other  gods  and  another  saviour  ? 


in 


Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Eternal;  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  not  the  Eternal;  and  the  question  still  remains: 
what  are  we  to  do  with  all  the  statements  with  which 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  abound,  in  which  it  is  declared, 
in  language  that  admits  of  no  second  meaning,  that 
the  Eternal  is  the  One  Only  God  and  Saviour,  besides 
whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  sa\iour,  none  like  Him, 
and  none  else?  Are  we  to  ignore  them,  after  the 
manner  of  our  Chrislian  friends,  because,  forsooth, 
13 


194      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

they  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  Platonic  and  idola- 
trous theory  of  a  trinity  or  triumvirate  of  gods  that 
Christianity  has  adopted,  nor  with  the  association  in 
any  way  of  any  other  god  with  the  Eternal?  The 
Word  of  God  is  not  to  be  ignored.  Christian  opinion 
may  perhaps  hold  it  to  have  been  very  wrong  and 
inexcusable,  and  very  inconsiderate,  on  the  part  of 
the  Eternal  and  His  prophets  to  have  so  emphatically 
and  persistently  denied  the  existence  of  any  other  god 
besides  Himself;  and  Christian  Evangelists  may,  with 
characteristic  modesty,  perhaps  think  that  if  they  had 
been  in  evidence  at  the  time  those  declarations  were 
made,— if  the  Christian  church  had  then  had  its 
birth,— the  Eternal  God  of  Israel  might,  with  advantage 
to  Himself,  have  consulted  them  on  the  subject  of  His 
Nature  and  Being;  and  that  the  information  they  could 
have  given  Him  on  the  matter  would  have  led  to  a 
formal  and  humble  recognition  by  the  Eternal  of  the 
existence,  as  gods  equally  with  Himself,  of  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  of  their  creed,  and  perhaps  even 
of  His  own  inferiority  to  the  god  whose  name  Christians 
have  exalted  above  every  other  name.  But  since  it 
happened  that  the  Eternal  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
wait  for  a  conference  upon  the  subject  with  any  of 
the  luminaries  great  or  small  of  the  Christian  church; 
and  since  the  question  presents  itself  as  one  of  veracity 
between  the  God  of  Israel  and  the  followers  of  the 
Nazarene,  the  Jews  accept  as  true  and  perfect  the 
declarations  made  to  them  by  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
and  reject  as  false  and  idolatrous  the  contrary  doctrines 
of  Christianity. 

The  Christian  belief  is  that  the  second  and  third 


AN   ANSWER  TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS         1 95 

persons  of  their  Trinity  are  gods  equal  to  and  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  Eternal;  and  if  the  latter  did 
not  have  the  advantage  of  consulting  Christian  church- 
men upon  the  nature  of  the  revelations  He  should 
make  about  Himself,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason, 
from  the  Christian  point  of  view,  why  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  not  have  been  available  as 
advisers  to  the  Eternal,  nor  why  they  should  have 
permitted  Him  to  so  completely  forget  the  fact  of  their 
existence  as  to  deny  it.  If  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  be  gods  such  as  Christians  claim  them  to  be, 
then,  it  may  be  fairly  asked,  where  were  they,  and 
what  were  they  doing,  during  all  the  centuries  during 
which  the  Almighty  and  His  prophets  were  making  the 
declarations  recorded  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  that 
beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none 
like  Him,  and  no  one  else?  Were  they  engaged  in 
planning  the  creation  of  other  worlds,  or  busy  in 
pursuit  of  their  Evil  One,  or  lost  in  the  depths  of  the 
Milky  Way,  or  simply  slumbering  until  the  exigencies 
of  Christianity  should  rouse  them  to  active  life?  If 
the  second  and  third  persons  of  the  Christian  Trinity 
be  gods  such  as  Christians  claim  them  to  be,  then 
why  should  the  Eternal  and  His  prophets  declare 
that  beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour, 
none  like  Him,  and  none  else?  Why  should  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  they  be  gods,  have 
permitted  their  divinity  to  be  denied  by  the  Almighty, 
and  have  remained  dumb  and  quiescent  at  all  those 
times  when  a  word  of  protest  and  of  self-assertion 
from  them  would  have  proved  so  invaluable  to  their 
worshippers  in  these  after  ages?    These  are  points 


196      A  JEWISH  REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

that  are  pertinent  to  the  issue;    and  we  invite  our 
Christian  friends  to  answer  these  interesting  queries. 

The  question  at  issue  between  the  Jew  and  the 
Christian  is  really  one  between  the  latter  and  the 
Almighty.  The  Eternal  declares  that  beside  Himself 
there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and 
none  else;  and  the  Christian  answers  that  there  is, — 
that  there  are  also  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Eternal  commands  the  Israelites:  "I  am  the 
Eternal  thy  God ;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
Me."* — "lam  the  Eternal  thy  God  from  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  thou  shalt  know  no  god  but  Me,  and  there 
is  no  saviour  beside  Me"^  and  again  the  Christians 
would  have  the  Jews  believe  that  the  Almighty  is 
wrong;  that  Jesus  Christ  is  their  Lord  and  Saviour, 
and  that  unless  the  Jews  know  and  acknowledge 
Jesus,  their  souls  will  surely  go  to  Hell.  Truly,  humil- 
ity and  modesty  are  not  among  the  failings  of  our 
Christian  brethren;  nor  are  they  lacking  in  self-conceit 
and  self-righteousness.  But  the  Israelites  are  the 
witnesses  of  the  Eternal  and  His  servant,  whom  He 
has  chosen,  in  order  that  they  may  know  and  believe 
Him ; '  and  they  do  believe  Him,  without  reserve. 
They  do  not,  like  our  Christian  friends,  give  Him 
the  lie. 


IV 


They  whom  Christians  call  their  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  either  gods,  or 
they  are  not  gods.    If  we  suppose  them  to  be  gods, 

1  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.  *  Hosea  xiii.  4.  '  Isaiah  xliii.  10. 


AN   ANSWER   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS         1 97 

then  they  must  be  either  identical  or  not  identical  with 
the  Eternal.  If  we  suppose  them  to  be  identical  with 
the  Eternal,  then  the  Christian  world  was  in  error  in 
adopting  the  Platonic  theory  of  a  trinity,  for  there 
can  be,  in  such  a  case,  no  triumvirate  of  gods,  but 
only  the  One  God,  the  Eternal;  and  whether  He  be 
called  by  that  name,  or  the  Almighty,  or  Jesus  Christ, 
or  the  Holy  Ghost,  these  would  be  but  different  desig- 
nations of  the  One  Eternal  Being,  besides  whom 
there  is  no  god.  If  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  Eternal,  then  the 
Christian  church  was  in  error  when  it  denounced  as 
heretical  the  doctrine  held  by  the  Sabellians,  who 
maintained  that  there  is  but  one  person  in  the  God- 
head, and  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  only 
different  powers,  operations,  or  offices  of  the  One 
God,  the  Father.  If  the  second  and  third  persons  in 
the  Christian  Trinity  be  held  to  be  identical  with  the 
Eternal,  then  it  is  quite  unnecessary  for  our  Christian 
friends  to  waste  so  much  time,  energy  and  money 
in  endeavoring  to  persuade  the  children  of  Israel  to 
worship  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  for, 
in  the  case  supposed,  they  already  do  so,  and  have 
done  so  from  the  time  of  their  great  forefathers,  not,  it 
is  true,  under  the  name  so  particularly  cherished  by 
Christians,  but  under  the  names  by  which  the  Eternal 
made  Himself  known  to  His  chosen  people. 

And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  second  and  third 
persons  of  the  Christian  Trinity  be  not  identical  with 
the  Eternal,— and  Christianity  claims  that  they  are  not ; 
if  they  be  in  any  way  distinguishable  from  the  Eternal, 
— and    Christianity    maintains    that    they    are;     then 


198      A   JEWISH    REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

they  cannot  be  gods,  for  the  Eternal  has  declared  that 
beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  none  like  Him,  and  no 
one  else. 

"  See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no 
god  with  Me." ^— ''Thus  hath  said  the  Eternal,  the 
King  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Eternal  of  Hosts, 
I  am  the  first  and  I  am  the  last,  and  beside  Me  there  is 
no  god." ^ — "I  am  the  Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else; 
beside  Me  there  is  no  god."^ — ''I  am  God,  and  there 
is  none  else;  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like 
Me."' 

On  the  question  of  the  identity  of  their  two  imagin- 
ary gods  with  the  Eternal,  our  Christian  brethren  try 
to  sit  astride  of  the  fence.  They  claim  on  the  one  side 
that  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  gods  who 
are  not  identical  with  the  Eternal;  that  each  person  in 
their  Trinity  has  his  own  hypostasis,  or  separate  and 
distinct  being;  and,  on  the  other  side,  they  disclaim 
belief  in  the  existence  of  three  gods,  and  profess  that 
they  hold  fast  to  the  Unity  of  God.  They  say  they 
hold  fast  to  the  Unity  of  God,  and  yet  they  rejected 
Sabellianism  as  heretical,  because  it  maintained 
there  is  but  One  God;  and  to  this  very  day  they 
denounce  the  blindness  and  unbelief  of  the  Jews, 
whom  they  relegate  to  their  kingdom  of  Satan,  because 
the  Jews  are  true,  and  not  hypocritical,  believers  in 
the  Unity  of  God,  and  will  not  worship  as  God  any 
other  than  the  Eternal.  Christians  claim  that  each 
one  of  their  three  gods  has  his  own  hypostasis,  and 
yet  they  found  themselves  obliged  to  reject  Tritheism 

^  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  ^  Isaiah  xliv.  6. 

^  Isaiah  xlv.  5.  *  Ibid.  xlvi.  9. 


AN    ANSWER  TO   CHRISTIAN    EVANGELISTS        1 99 

as  heretical  because  it  held  that  there  are  three  gods, 
and  a  belief  in  three  gods  cannot  be  distinguished 
from  idolatry.  Christianity  is  a  religion  of  mixed 
Jewish  and  pagan  origin;  and,  because  of  its  hybrid 
nature,  it  finds  itself  in  this  dilemma: — it  cannot, 
while  professing  to  believe  in  only  One  God,  admit 
that  the  Eternal  is,  as  He  declares  Himself  to  be,  the 
Only  God,  besides  whom  there  is  no  god  and  no 
saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  none  else,  for  that  would 
be  an  act  of  self-destruction;  and,  while  worshipping 
three  gods,  it  cannot  openly  and  boldly  declare  that 
there  are  three  of  them,  for  that  would  be  nothing 
else  than  idolatry.  But,  if  the  belief  in  the  existence 
of  more  than  One  God  be  idolatry,  then  the  worship 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  being  gods  in 
any  way  separate  and  distinct  from  the  Eternal,  can 
also  be  nothing  else  than  idolatry,  let  our  Christian 
brethren  deny  the  conclusion  as  much  as  they  will. 

If  we  suppose  that  the  second  and  third  persons  of 
the  Christian  Trinity  are  gods,  then  they  must  be 
either  identical,  or  not  identical,  with  the  Eternal; 
they  cannot  be  both.  It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  which  proclaim  throughout  that  the  Eternal 
is  the  Only  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  gods, 
that  there  is  none  beside  Him,  and  none  like  Him,  if 
Christianity,  under  stress  of  the  false  and  impossible 
position  in  which  it  has  placed  itself,  finds  itself  com- 
pelled to  hold  that  in  some  way  that  it  cannot  explain, 
— in  some  way  passing  the  understanding  of  man, — 
its  two  supposititious  gods  are  both  identical,  and  not 
identical  with  the  Eternal;  that  its  three  gods  are  but 
One  God,  and  that  this  One  God  is  three  gods. 


200      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

The  human  mind  can  understand  a  religion  that 
teaches  us  that  there  is  but  the  One  Supreme  Being, 
besides  whom  there  is  no  god ;  and  it  can  also  compre- 
hend a  system  that  maintains  that  there  are  three 
gods;  but  human  intelligence  has  never  been  able  to 
explain  how  three  gods,  each  with  his  own  hypostasis, 
can  be  One  Only  God,  and  how  that  One  God  can  at 
the  same  time  be  three  gods,  each  having  his  own 
individuality.  Christian  churchmen  have  never  been 
able  to  explain  the  glaring  absurdities  and  inconsis- 
tencies on  which  their  religion  is  based;  nor  how 
their  beUef  in  the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  gods  separate  and  distinguishable  from 
the  Eternal,  can  be  reconciled  with  the  repeated 
declarations  made  by  the  latter  that,  beside  Himself, 
there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  none 
else.  These  declarations  are  incompatible  with  the 
existence  of  other  gods  and  another  saviour  than  the 
Eternal  alone;  they  are  a  denial  by  Him  of  the  pre- 
tended association  of  other  gods  and  another  saviour 
with  Him.  Christianity  sets  itself  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  revealed  Word  of  God;  and  if  the  Christian 
world  finds  itself  bound  to  a  belief  that  it  can  neither 
justify  nor  explain,  and  in  a  dilemma  from  which  it 
cannot  escape,  it  is  because  the  religious  system  it  has 
adopted  is  nothing  else  than  the  invention  of  man, — a 
mass  of  contradictory  doctrines  and  assumptions, — 
a  mixture  of  Jewish  monotheism  with  Persian,  Grecian, 
and  Roman  polytheism  and  philosophy, — and  not  a 
revelation  from  the  Eternal. 


AN    ANSWER   TO   CHRISTIAN    EVANGELISTS         20I 


Whatever  it  may  have  been  the  intention  of  the 
Almighty  to  have  mankind  know  about  Himself,  He 
did  not  call  upon  us  to  believe  that  which  was  beyond 
our  human  understanding;  for  what  He  did  reveal 
was  made  known  to  us  in  words  that  neither  man  nor 
child  can  fail  to  comprehend.  What  was  revealed 
was  not  shrouded  in  mystery,  but  was  made  very 
clear, — as  clear  as  language  could  make  it.  "I  am 
the  Eternal  thy  God;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  Me."  ^ — "See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and 
there  is  no  god  with  Me."  ^ — "I,  even  I,  am  the  Eternal; 
and  beside  Me  there  is  no  saviour."^ — ''I  am  the 
Eternal,  and  there  is  none  else ;  there  is  no  god  beside 
Me."'*— "I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt 
know  no  god  but  Me;  and  there  is  no  saviour  beside 
Me." '  Because  our  Christian  brethren  are  unable  to 
understand,  or  will  ignore,  plain  words  like  these,  is 
no  reason  why  the  Jews  should  be  afflicted  with  like 
dulness  of  perception  or  follow  their  example  to 
idolatry. 

''For  this  commandment,  which  I  command  thee 
this  day,  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  nor  is  it  far  off.  It 
is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldest  say.  Who  will  go 
up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may 
hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that 
thou  shouldest  say.  Who  will  go  over  the  sea  for  us, 
and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it? 

^  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.  2  Deut.  xxxii.  39.         ^  Isaiah  xliii.  11. 

*  Isaiah  xlv.  5.  ^  Hosea  xiii.  4. 


202       A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

But  the  word  is  very  nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth, 
and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it."^ 

In  this  passage  the  prophet  Moses  taught  the  Israel- 
ites that  there  was  nothing  that  they  could  not  under- 
stand in  what  their  God  had  commanded  them;  that 
the  justice  of  the  Eternal  did  not  require  them  to 
believe  what  their  human  reason  could  not  comprehend ; 
that  there  was  neither  secret  nor  mystery  in  what  was 
told  them.  He  taught  them  that  they  did  not  have  to 
send  to  Heaven,  that  is,  that  they  were  not  in  need  of 
another  revelation  from  the  Almighty,  in  order  to  find 
out  what  had  been  commanded  them.  Nor  did  they 
require  to  send  beyond  the  sea,  that  is,  that  they  were 
not  to  seek  instruction  from  strangers,  from  non- 
IsraeHtes,  in  order  to  learn  the  meaning  of  what  God 
had  told  them.  The  Jews  have  not  to  go  to  Christian 
Evangehsts,  in  order  to  find  out  what  God's  command- 
ments are;  for  the  knowledge  is  not  there.  It  is  with 
themselves,  the  witnesses  of  the  Eternal;  it  is  with 
them,  the  Jews,  in  their  mouths,  and  in  their  hearts; 
and  the  whole  course  of  Jewish  history  has  proved 
that  the  non-Jew  can  only  lead  the  Jews  astray,  and 
will  only  lead  them  away  from  their  God.  Not  to 
Christians,  nor  even  to  Christian  Evangehsts,  but 
unto  the  IsraeUtes  themselves,  has  it  been  shown,  that 
they  may  know,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  God;  there 
is  none  else  beside  Him.  Out  of  the  heavens  He 
caused  His  people  to  hear  His  voice,  that  He  might 
instruct  them;  and  upon  the  earth  He  caused  them  to 
see  His  great  fire;  and  His  words  they  did  hear  out  of 
the  midst  of  the  fire.^     **I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God, 

^  Deut.  XXX.  11-14.  2  peut.  iv.  35,  36. 


AN  ANSWER  TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS         203 

who  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out 
of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
gods  before  Me."  ^ 

"Know  therefore  this  day,  and  reflect  in  thy  heart, 
that  the  Eternal  is  the  God  in  the  heavens  above,  and 
upon  the  earth  beneath;  there  is  none  else."  ^  How 
many  times,  and  in  what  form  of  words,  must  this 
truth  be  declared  before  it  can  penetrate  the  dull  inner 
consciousness  of  our  Christian  brethren,  before  they 
can  understand  that  when  the  Eternal  and  His  prophets 
declare  that  besides  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no 
saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  no  one  else,  those  state- 
ments make  no  exception  in  favor  of  any  one,  and 
exclude  their  pretended  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
and  their  Holy  Ghost  from  all  claim  to  godship  as 
absolutely  as  they  did  the  gods  of  the  Canaanites  and 
those  of  ancient  Eg}9t?  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the 
Eternal;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  the  Eternal;  and  since 
there  is  no  other  god  than  the  Eternal,  no  other  saviour, 
none  like  Him,  and  none  else,  there  can  therefore  be 
no  such  gods  as  the  second  and  third  persons  of  the 
Christian  Trinity;  there  cannot  even  be  such  a  person 
as  the  Devil  of  the  New  Testament.  And  belief  in 
the  existence  of  His  Satanic  Majesty,  as  an  Evil  Being 
possessed  of  power  almost  equal  to  that  of  the  gods  of 
its  Trinity,  is  so  essential  a  part  of  the  Christian  religion 
that,  if  Christianity  were  deprived  of  the  comfort  and 
support  of  this  one  doctrine  alone,  it  would  be  at  a 
sad  loss  to  know  what  to  do  with  itself.  Take  from 
it,  also,  the  necessity  of  finding  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
as  being  the  accepted  Word  of  God,  reasons  or  excuses 

'  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.  2  Deut.  iv.  39. 


204      A   JEWISH   REPLY    TO   CHRISTIAN    EVANGELISTS 

of  some  kind  or  other  for  its  idolatrous  worship  of  its 
two  false  and  imaginary  gods,  and  Christians  might 
perhaps  then  be  able  to  act  honestly  and  intelligently 
in  matters  of  religion. 

For  honesty  and  intelligence  in  matters  of  religion 
are  quahties  in  which  Christians  have  always  shown 
themselves  to  be  deficient.  If  it  were  othenvise, — if 
Christians  were  capable  of  acting  honestly  and  intel- 
ligently in  religious  matters, — they  would  pick  out  for 
discussion  all  those  passages  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
in  which  it  is  declared  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God, 
besides  whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none 
hke  Him,  and  no  one  else;  they  would  not  ignore 
them;  for  these  are  statements  that  strike  at  the 
very  root  of  their  religion.  These  are  declarations 
that  cannot  be  reconciled  with  their  theory  of  a  trinity 
or  triumvirate  of  gods;  and  yet,  if  Christians  were 
capable  of  acting  with  intelligence  in  matters  of  religion, 
they  would  understand  that  they  must  face  and  deal 
with  these  declarations;  that  they  must  either  accept 
and  abide  by  them,  or  deny  them ;  that  they  cannot  ignore 
them,  nor  can  they  evade  them;  and  that  they  must 
prove  them  to  be  false,  before  they  can  begin  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  their  contrary  doctrine  of  the  existence 
of  other  gods  and  of  another  saviour  than  the  Eternal 
alone. 


VI 


Ir  our  Christian  friends  were  capable  of  acting 
honestly  in  rehgious  matters,  they  would  not  pretend 
that  they  believed  in  One  God,  and  One  only,  and, 


AN   ANSWER    TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS         205 

with  that  profession  on  their  lips,  straightway  exert 
themselves  to  twist,  pervert  and  misapply  every  pas- 
sage in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  that  they  think  can  be 
of  the  slightest  use  to  them,  in  their  vain  efforts  to 
make  those  Scriptures  appear  to  reveal  the  existence  of 
a  pluraUty  of  gods.  They  would  not  profess  that 
they  believed  in  only  One  God,  and  with  that  profes- 
sion on  their  lips,  worship,  and  try  to  persuade  Jews 
to  worship,  as  gods,  not  only  the  Eternal,  but  also  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  they  claim  to  be  not  the  Eternal,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  they  also  maintain  to  be  not 
the  Eternal. 

If  Christians  were  capable  of  acting  with  honesty  in 
matters  of  religion,  they  would  either  admit  the  truth 
of  the  declarations  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God, 
beside  whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none 
like  Him,  and  no  one  else,  and,  as  a  consequence  of 
that  admission,  worship  the  Eternal  alone  as  the  Only 
God  and  the  Only  Saviour;  or  else,  they  would  deny 
the  truth  of  those  statements,  and  claim  that  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  are  wrong,  and  not  inspired  of  God. 
Instead  of  professing  that  they  believed  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  then  laboring  to 
pervert  them,  they  would  admit  that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  maintain,  throughout,  that  there  is  but  the 
One  God,  the  Eternal,  besides  whom  there  is  no  god, 
and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him  and  none  else;  but  they 
would  claim  that  such  teaching  was  wrong.  They 
would  say:  *'We  believe  that  there  are  two  other  gods 
besides  the  Eternal;  and  we  therefore  worship  three 
gods,  the  Eternal,  and  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
whether  such  worship  be  idolatry  or  not.     We  hold 


206      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

the  Jews  to  be  wrong  in  their  religious  belief,  not  because 
they  do  not  follow  the  teaching  of  their  Scriptures, 
but  because  we  believe  that  teaching  to  be  wrong; 
and  we  endeavor  to  convert  them  to  our  religion, 
because  we  believe  that  their  Scriptures  do  not  contain 
the  truth."  That  would  be  an  honest  position  for 
Christians  to  take,  however  erroneous  it  would  be; 
and  it  is  the  kind  of  position  they  would  take,  if  they 
were  capable  of  acting  honestly  in  matters  of  religion. 
Such  a  position  would,  at  any  rate,  have  the  merit  of 
being  free  from  hypocrisy,  and  of  showing  that  our 
Christian  friends  had,  in  the  face  of  God  and  man,  the 
courage  of  their  real  convictions. 

The  declaration  so  often  made  and  repeated  through- 
out the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only 
God,  beside  whom  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour, 
none  like  Him,  and  no  one  else,  is  the  dominating 
maxim  or  truth  that  governs  the  whole  of  those  Script- 
ures; and,  if  Christians  were  capable  of  acting  with 
intelligence  in  religious  matters,  they  would  under- 
stand that  any  interpretation  of  any  passage  in  those 
Scriptures  that  would  tend  to  show  the  existence  of 
any  other  god,  or  of  any  other  saviour,  than  the  Eternal 
alone,  must  necessarily  be  a  false  and  erroneous  inter- 
pretation; and  they  would  therefore  abstain  from  all 
attempt  to  interpret  in  that  false  way  any  part  of  those 
Scriptures.  And  if  they  wanted  to  find  reasons  or 
excuses  for  their  idolatrous  worship  of  other  gods  and 
another  saviour  than  the  Eternal  alone,  they  would  look 
for  them  somewhere  else  than  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

In  short,  if  our  Christian  friends  were  capable  of  acting 
with  honesty  and  intelligence  in  religious  matters,  they 


AN   ANSWER  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS  207 

would  abandon  their  system  of  perverting  and  misapply- 
ing the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  for  they  would  understand 
that  that  system  can  be  regarded  only  as  proof  either  of 
their  ignorance  of  those  Scriptures,  or  of  wilful  and 
studied  dishonesty  on  their  part.  They  would  not  ask  a 
Jew  any  of  the  thousand  and  one  petty  and  irrelevant  side 
questions  that  are  contained  in  their  tracts  and  evangel- 
izing pamphlets ;  for  they  would  know  that  to  every  one 
of  their  questions  the  Jew  is  bound  to  reply  that  the 
Eternal  and  His  prophets  have  declared  that  beside  Him- 
self there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and 
none  else.  And  they  would  not  continue  to  afflict  their 
Jewish  acquaintances  with  endless  repetitions  of  false 
statements  and  nonsensical  arguments  that  only  the 
importance  of  the  subject  rescues  from  the  silent  con- 
tempt they  merit. 

Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Eternal;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
the  Eternal;  and  we  invite  our  Christian  brethren  to 
come  to  the  point,  and  face  the  real  question  that  is  at 
issue,  and  to  tell  us,  if  they  can,  how  their  idolatrous 
worship  of  other  gods  and  another  saviour  than  the 
Eternal  alone  can  be  reconciled  with  the  many  declara- 
tions made  by  the  latter,  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no 
god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  no  one  else? 
If  our  Christian  friends  possess  sources  of  information 
on  the  subject  superior  in  authority  to  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  that  justify  their  religion,  they  can  make 
them  known;  if  they  think  that  they  know  better  than 
the  Eternal  does  whether  there  are  other  gods  and 
another  saviour  besides  Himself  alone,  they  can  say  so ; 
and,  in  any  case,  we  challenge  them  to  state,  openly  and 
plainly,  whether  they  accept  as  true,  or  whether  they  deny 


2C8     A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

the  truth  of,  the  declarations  made  by  the  Eternal,  that 
beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like 
Him,  and  none  else.  And  if  our  Christian  friends  admit 
the  truth  of  these  declarations,  then  we  have  to  ask  them 
what  they  will  do.  Will  they  abide  by  these  declarations, 
and  worship  the  Eternal  alone  as  the  only  God  and  the 
only  Saviour  ?  or  will  they  still  persist  in  their  idolatrous 
worship  of  false  gods  and  an  imaginary  saviour  whom 
the  Eternal  does  not  know,  and  whose  existence  He  has 
denied  ?  And  as  the  consequences  of  adopting  the  latter 
course  are  very  serious,  we  must  further  ask  our  Chris- 
tian brethren  if  they  deliberately  wish  to  incur  them  ? 

The  question  at  issue  is  very  simple,  for  God  has  laid 
no  traps  or  snares  for  men;  it  is  as  simple  as  it  is  mo- 
mentous. And  when  men  will  appear  before  the  Al- 
mighty for  judgment,  and  He  will  ask  our  Christian 
friends:  "Have  you  not  known  that  I,  the  Eternal, 
have  declared  that  beside  Me  there  is  no  god,  and  no 
saviour,  none  like  Me,  and  none  else  ?  "  and  they  answer 
in  the  affirmative;  what  reply  will  they  make  to  the 
further  questions,  "How,  then,  have  you  dared  to  wor- 
ship, as  god  and  saviour,  any  other  than  Me?  How, 
then,  have  you  dared  to  lead  astray  any  of  My  people, 
the  witnesses  whom  I,  the  Eternal,  have  chosen,  to  the 
worship,  as  god  and  saviour,  of  any  other  than  Me?" 
These  are  questions  that  our  Christian  brethren  will  one 
day  be  called  upon  to  answer,  and  from  which  they  will 
not  be  able  to  escape;  let  them  meditate,  now,  upon  the 
replies  they  will  make;  and  let  them  reflect  that  they 
will  then  be  in  the  dread  presence  of  One  before  whom 
all  cant  and  hypocrisy,  and  all  equivocation,  and  evasion 
and  perversion  of  His  word  will  be  only  §o  many  aggra- 
vations of  their  sin  of  idolatrv. 


Lecture  Delivered    to   the  Young  People's 

Society  of  "  Shaar  Hashomayim/* 

of  Montreal 

November  28,  1905  (5666). 

Your  president  asked  me  to  deliver  to  your  society  a 
lecture  similar  in  character  to  some  articles  that  I  have 
on  various  occasions  contributed  to  The  Jewish  Times 
of  this  city,  and  which  have  been  published  in  the  col- 
umns of  that  paper.  Those  articles  dealt  with  religious 
questions,  with  questions  that  have  been  at  issue  between 
us  Jews  and  our  Christian  brethren  for  nearly  nineteen 
centuries;  and  in  asking  me  to  address  you  on  matters 
that  have  been  the  subject  of  controversy  for  so  long  a 
period  of  time,  I  think  that  your  president  has  been 
desirous  of  using  me  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  to 
you  a  moral.  The  lesson  that  he  must  wish  to  teach 
you  is  that  no  Jew,  not  even  if  he  be  a  layman  like  myself, 
and  equipped  with  only  the  scantiest  religious  knowl- 
edge, need  fear  to  face  any  of  the  endless  questions  and 
arguments  with  which  Christian  Evangelists  are  so  fond 
of  perpetually  afflicting  us.  It  is  from  this  point  of 
view  that  I  regard  the  invitation  that  your  president 
gave  me;  and  it  is  because  I  believe  that  he  wishes  to 
teach  you,  through  me,  the  lesson  I  have  mentioned, 
that  I  now  stand  before  you. 

The  reason  why  it  is  so  easy  for  a  Jew  to  answer  the 
14 


2 TO      A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

questions  and  refute  the  arguments  that  may  be  ad- 
dressed to  him  by  any  Christian  Evangelist  is  not  because 
the  former  has  more  ability  or  greater  skill  in  debate 
than  the  latter,  but  simply  because  he  has  the  better 
case.  We  have  not  only  a  good  case,  but  the  very  best 
there  can  possibly  be;  for  our  religion  has  come  to  us 
as  a  direct  revelation  from  the  Almighty,  delivered  to 
us  from  amidst  the  thunders  and  lightnings  of  Mount 
Sinai;  while  the  Christian  has  a  man-made  religion, 
the  origin  of  whose  distinguishing  and  fundamental 
feature  is  to  be  found  in  the  vague  speculations  of  pagan 
philosophy.  It  is  then  no  wonder  that  the  Jews,  armed 
with  and  believing  in  God-given  truths,  should  find 
it  not  difficult  to  disprove  the  erroneous  statements 
and  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

It  is  claimed  by  our  Christian  brethren  that  their 
religion  is  a  development  in  a  higher  and  more  spirit- 
ual form  of  the  teachings  and  principles  of  what  they 
term  Ancient  Judaism,  or  Mosaism,  on  which  they 
say  it  is  founded;  but  this  is  a  wrong  claim;  and  we 
shall  presently  see  that  the  trinitarian  or  fundamental 
doctrine  of  Christianity  has  a  basis  other  than  Judaism 
and  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

For  hundreds  of  years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  the  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome  had 
been  dissatisfied  wth  the  religious  systems  of  their 
own  mythologies,  and  had  been  engaged  in  devising 
some  more  rational  form  of  belief.  Among  them  may 
be  mentioned  Plato,  a  celebrated  philosopher  of  Athens, 
who  was  born  more  than  400  years  before  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era.  Plato's  study  of  what  he  sup- 
posed to  be  the  nature  of  God  led  him  to  give  the 


LECTURE  211 

Deity  a  threefold  character,  that  of  the  First  Cause, 
the  Word  or  Logos,  and  the  Soul  or  Spirit  of  the  Uni- 
verse. These  three  characters  were  represented  by 
Plato  under  the  form  of  three  gods,  who  were  united 
with  each  other  in  a  mysterious  way;  and  the  second 
of  them,  the  Word  or  Logos,  he  described  as  the  Son 
of  an  Eternal  Father,  and  the  Creator  and  Governor 
of  the  world.  In  these  theories  of  Plato  we  have  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  Christian 
creed;  and  it  is  to  Plato,  and  not  to  Moses, — to  the 
schools  of  pagan  philosophy,  and  not  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, — that  Christianity  is  indebted 
for  its  doctrine  of  a  Trinity. 

At  the  time  when  Christianity  made  its  appearance 
the  theological  systems  of  Plato  and  other  Grecian 
philosophers  were  taught  in  every  seat  of  learning 
throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  and  were  familiar  to 
all  educated  persons.  Every  philosophical  school  had 
its  own  Logos,  who  agreed  with  the  others  in  some 
points,  and  differed  in  others;  and  the  same  subtle 
and  difficult  questions  concerning  the  nature,  the 
generation,  the  distinction  and  the  equality  of  the  three 
divine  persons  who  composed  the  mysterious  Triad 
or  Trinity  of  the  philosophical  systems,  that  had,  as 
abstract  metaphysical  questions,  perplexed  the  wisest 
of  the  Grecian  sages,  and  had  been  discussed  for  ages 
in  their  schools,  came  afterward,  as  real  and  vital 
questions  of  the  highest  importance,  to  engage  the 
attention  and  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Christian 
church.  For  Christianity  had,  very  early  in  its  career, 
adopted  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  theology  of 
Plato ;  and  the  Gospel  that  is  ascribed  to  St.  John  had 


212      A  JEWISH   REPLY    TO  CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

confirmed  the  name  and  the  divine  attributes  of  the 
Logos.  This  last  of  the  Gospels  announced  to  the 
Gentile  world  that  the  Logos  or  Word,  who  was  with 
God  from  the  beginning,  and  was  God,  and  by 
whom  all  things  had  been  made,  was  identical  with 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  had  been  incarnate  in  his 
person.* 

The  first  or  Jewish  Christians  had  accepted  Jesus 
as  a  person  endowed  with  supernatural  virtue  and 
power,  and  had  attributed  to  him  all  the  prophecies  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  relating  to  the  promised  Messiah; 
but  they  had  obstinately  rejected  the  doctrine  of  his 
preceding  existence  and  divinity,^  as  being  incom- 
patible with  the  teachings  of  those  Scriptures.  After 
this  doctrine  and  that  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by 
the  Logos  or  Son  of  God  were  formally  recognized  and 
adopted  by  the  Christian  church,  the  number  of 
Jewish  Christians  began  to  dwindle;  and  if  Christian- 
ity had  depended  for  support  on  the  Jewish  people 
alone,  it  would  soon  have  passed  out  of  existence. 
But  after  the  gospel  of  St.  John  had  identified  the 
Logos  of  the  philosophical  schools  with  the  sacred 
object  of  Christian  faith,  hope,  and  worship,  then  the 
new  religion  was  adopted  by  a  large  and  increasing 
number  of  Gentiles  in  every  province  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  To  them  Christianity  gave  life  and  reality 
to  what  had  previously  been  only  the  vague  and  abstract 
speculations  of  philosophical  ii^quiry;  and  the  fate 
threatened  by  the  Christian  church  against  all  unbe- 
lievers in  Christ,  that  of  eternal  tortures  in  the  world 

1  Johni.  I,  3,4,  I4,  34- 

2  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  2,  p.  397  (Bohn,  1854). 


LECTURE  213 

to  come,  helped  and  terrified  many  a  polytheist  into 
embracing  the  rehgion  that  promised  him  security  from 
so  dreadful  a  future. 

This   short  explanation  of  the  real   origin  of  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity  will  serve  to  show 
you  how  erroneous  is  the  claim  made  by  our  Christian 
brethren,   that  the  divinity  of  the  second  and  third 
persons  of  their  Trinity  rests  and  is  based  upon  the 
word  and  teaching  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.     But 
Christians  are  obliged  to  make  this  claim,  since  they 
cannot  pretend  that  the  theology  of  Plato  has  in  itself 
any  semblance  of  the  authority  of  a  divine  revelation; 
and  the  exigencies  of  their  case  compel  them  to  turn 
to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  being  the  only  source 
from  which  they  may  hope,  in  some  way  or  other,  to 
secure  evidence  of  some  kind  or  other  that  will  enable 
them  to  give  to  their  Platonic  doctrines  the  appearance 
and   credit   of  Divine   sanction.     The   task   that   our 
Christian  friends  have  been  obliged  to  undertake  is  not 
only  a  difiicult,  but  an  impossible  one;  for  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  declare  from  first  to  last,  and  in  the  plainest 
terms  of  which  language  is  susceptible,  that  there  is  but 
the  One  God,  the  Eternal,  besides  whom  there  is  no 
god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  none  else;  and 
all  the  statements  and  arguments  to  the  contrary  that 
may  be  made  or  urged  by  Christian  Evangelists  cannot 
have  the  slightest  effect  in  the  way  of  changing  the  asser- 
tion of  the  Almighty  that  there  is  no  god  with  Him,*  or 
of  aUering  His  command, ''  I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God,  who 
have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house 
of  bondage;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."^ 

1  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  ^  Exod.  xx.  2,  3. 


214      A   JEWISH    REPLY    TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

But  the  Christian  Evangelist  will  tell  you  that  he 
also  believes  in  One  God,  and  One  only;  and  that  we 
Jews  are  mistaken  if  we  think  that  Christians  believe 
in  more  gods  than  one.  He  will  tell  you  this,  and 
he  may  perhaps  even  believe  that  he  is  perfectly  sin- 
cere in  making  such  a  statement ;  but  his  self-deception, 
whether  real  or  assumed,  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
permit  him  to  lead  us  astray.  For  the  Christian 
Evangelist  will  tell  you  in  one  breath  that  he  believes 
that  there  is  only  One  God;  and  the  next  instant  he 
will  endeavor  to  prove  to  you  that  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures reveal  the  existence  of  a  plurality  of  gods.  He 
will  tell  you  at  one  moment  that  he  believes  unreservedly 
in  the  word  of  the  Eternal,  that  there  is  no  god  beside 
Him;  and  the  next  minute  he  will  ask  you,  to  whom 
was  the  Eternal  speaking  when  He  said,  "Let  Us 
make  man  in  Owr  image" ^;  and  he  will  endeavor  to 
convince  you  that  the  Eternal  must  on  that  occasion 
have  been  speaking  to  another  god  possessed  of  equal 
creative  power  with  Himself;  and  that  the  use  of  the 
plural  in  this  and  other  passages  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
is  proof  that  there  must  be  more  gods  than  one.  The 
reason  why  our  Christian  friends  show  so  much  incon- 
sistency between  their  professions  of  belief  in  the 
existence  of  only  One  God  and  their  arguments  in 
favor  of  a  plurahty  of  gods  is  easily  seen,  and  it  is 
this:  that  whatever  Christians  may  say  or  profess 
about  their  belief  in  One  God  only,  they  do,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  worship  more  than  one.  It  is  not 
the  worship  of  more  than  One  God  that  in  any  way 
troubles  our  Christian  brethren;    they  do  that  with 

'  Gen.  i.  '  6. 


LECTURE  215 

zeal  and  without  scruple ;  it  is  the  calling  their  gods  three 
gods  that  is  repugnant  to  Christian  feeling;  and  it  is  objec- 
tionable to  them  simply  because  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
which  they  are  obliged  to  accept  as  the  one  incontestable 
source  of  revealed  religion,  do  assert  in  a  way  that  can- 
not be  denied  that  there  is  but  One  God,  and  only  One. 
If,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  assume  the  con- 
trary, and  suppose  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  do  admit 
the  existence  of  a  Father,  a  Son,  and  a  Holy  Spirit, 
as  three  co-equal  and  co-eternal  gods,  each  of  them 
having  his  own  individuahty, — and  such  is  the  Christian 
contention, — then   there   can   be   no   possible   sin   or 
idolatry    in    Christians    worshipping    them    as    three 
distinct    gods;     and    there    should    be    no    hesitation 
whatever  on  the  part  of  our  Christian  friends  in  making 
their  professions   conform   to   their   practice,    and   in 
frankly  avowing  that  they  do  believe  in  and  worship 
three  gods,  and   not  one  alone.     Granting   the  exist- 
ence of  three  Divine  Beings,  each  of  whom  is  equally 
God  and  is  distinguishable  from  the  other  two,  it  is 
and  can  be  no  sin  to  call  them  three  gods.     The  sin 
and  the  error  would  consist  in  calHng  them  One  God. 
And  if  our  Christian  brethren  are  really  of  opinion  that 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  justify  them  in  worshipping, 
as  God,  three  Divine  Beings,  each  of  whom  has  his 
own    individuality    and    is    therefore    distinguishable 
from  the  other  two,  then  they  are  guilty  of  sin  toward 
two  of  these  gods  when  they  profess  before  men  that 
they  believe  in  One  God,  and  One  only;    for  their 
professions  are  in  such  case  nothing  else  than  a  reflec- 
tion upon  and  denial  of  the  perfect  and  absolute  divin- 
ity of  the  other  two  gods. 


21 6     A  JEWISH  REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

Our  Christian  brethren  try  to  escape  from  the 
difficulties  of  their  position  by  claiming  that  the  Unity 
of  the  God  or  Godhead  in  which  they  beheve  is  a 
compound  and  not  an  absolute  Unity;  and  that  the 
three  god^  whom  they  worship  are  one,  because, 
and  only  because,  each  of  them  has  an  equal  share  in 
One  Divine  Nature,  which  itself  is  incapable  of  divi- 
sion or  disunity.  It  is  impossible  to  define  clearly 
what  our  Christian  friends  may  mean  by  these  expres- 
sions; and  we  can  only  infer  that  the  Unity  in  which 
they  believe  is  more  or  less  a  figurative  or  fictitious 
Unity,  and  not  a  real  one;  and  that  their  statement 
that  the  Divine  Nature,  as  shared  by  their  three  gods, 
is  incapable  of  division  or  disunity,  means  that  there 
is  always  a  perfect  harmony  and  concord  between  the 
three  gods;  and  that,  because  each  of  them  has  the 
same  divine  nature  and  is  equally  possessed  of  perfect 
wisdom  and  goodness,  there  is  never  any  difference  or 
disagreement  between  them.  But,  whatever  may  be 
the  precise  meaning  of  the  expressions  that  are  used 
by  our  Christian  friends,  the  explanation  they  give  is 
manifestly  a  mere  trifling  with  words  and  conflicting 
ideas,  and  pure  sophistry.  Our  Christian  brethren 
use  the  expression  Godhead  as  though  it  were  synony- 
mous with  the  word  God,  which  it  is  not.  The  word 
God  means  the  Divine  Being  who  is  God;  while  the 
term  Godhead,  which  is  nowhere  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  signifies  the  office  or  quahty  rather  than  the 
person  of  God.  When,  therefore,  our  Christian 
friends  say  that  the  Godhead  is  composed  of  three 
persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  that  these  three  gods  arc  one,  because  they  equally 


LECTURE  217 

share  the  Divine  Nature  and  are  one  or  the  same  in 
essence;  these  expressions  can  only  be  taken  to  mean 
that  the  office  or  quaHty  of  God  is  held  and  shared  by 
three  Divine  Beings,  each  of  whom  has  an  equal  right 
to  the  name  of  God  and  to  be  called  God,  because 
each  of  them  has  the  same  divine  nature  and  is  possessed 
in  an  equal  degree  of  all  the  powers  and  perfections 
which  we  associate  with  the  quality  or  office  of  God. 
If  this  be,  as  Christians  claim  that  it  is,  the  theological 
doctrine  that  is  embodied  in  and  taught  by  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  then,  as  just  now  remarked,  there  can  be 
no  sin  or  idolatry  in  our  Christian  friends  worshipping 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  three  separate 
and  distinct  gods,  and  in  frankly  calling  them  three 
gods,  or  a  triumvirate  of  gods.  It  is  only  in  the  case 
that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  do  not  admit  this  prin- 
ciple of  a  combination  or  association  of  three  individ- 
ual beings  or  gods  in  the  Godhead  that  the  worship  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  being 
three  gods,  and  constituting  a  triumvirate  of  gods, 
can  be  either  sinful  or  idolatrous;  and  the  zeal  and 
anxiety  that  have  ever  been  shown  by  the  Christian 
church  in  repudiating  the  idea  that  it  believes  in  and 
worships  three  gods  is  all  the  admission  that  we  Jews 
need  ask  for  to  prove  that  our  Scriptures  do  not  recog- 
nize the  theological  system  that  Christianity  claims 
they  do,  but  that  they  do  on  the  contrary  maintain 
that  there  is,  in  very  truth  and  reality,  not  only  One 
God,  but  also  only  One  Being  who  is  God. 

Besides  this  doctrine  of  an  association  of  three  gods 
in  the  Godhead,  which  Christianity  has  adopted  from 
the  theories  of  Plato,  it  also  seeks  to  establish  upon 


2l8     A    JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

the  teaching  and  authority  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
that  other  of  its  fundamental  principles, — ^which  it 
has  drawn  from  ancient  Persian  philosophy/ — which 
places  mankind  and  the  whole  universe  under  the 
dual  and  conflicting  rule  of  two  powers  of  almost 
equal  potency,  the  God  of  Good  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  God  of  Evil  on  the  other.  But  we  will  not  this 
evening  discuss  that  branch  of  the  subject,  but  confine 
ourselves  to  the  consideration  of  the  alleged  union  of 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  to  an  examination 
of  one  or  two  of  the  more  important  of  those  passages 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  upon  which  Christian  theo- 
logians principally  rely  for  the  proof  of  the  truth  of 
that  union. 

Of  all  the  questions  that  men  are  called  upon  to 
consider,  there  is  none  of  greater  moment  to  the  human 
race  than  that  which  separates  the  Jew  from  the 
Christian  with  regard  to  the  Unity  of  God;  and  if  there 
be  one  thing  more  than  another  that  we  have  the 
right  to  expect  from  writings  of  the  inspired  character 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  it  is  that  upon  this  question 
they  shall  speak  with  the  same  clearness  of  expression, 
the  same  freedom  from  ambiguity,  the  same  force, 
and  with  the  same  truth  that  characterize  the  com- 
mands, "Thou  shalt  not  kill"  and  ''Thou  shalt  not 
steal."  On  a  question  of  such  vital  importance  as 
this  one,  which  involves  our  duty  to  our  Creator,  our 
belief  in  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  His  revealed  Word, 
and  the  happiness  of  our  souls  throughout  all  eternity, 
we  have  the  right  to  expect  that  our  Scriptures  shall 

*  Prideaux,  Connections,  Part  i,  Book  4,  p.  251,  Edinburgh  edition, 
1779. 


LECTURE  219 

speak  in  words  that  will  leave  no  doubt  as  to  their 
meaning,  no  room  for  discussion,  and  no  chance  of 
coming  to  a  wrong  conclusion ;  and  it  must  be  admitted 
that  it  is  in  language  of  this  character  that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  do  speak.  Nothing  can  be  more  ckarly 
and  plainly  expressed  than  the  command  that  was 
given  us  by  God  at  Mount  Sinai,  "I  am  the  Eternal 
thy  God,  who  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."  ^ 
There  is  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words  of  the  Eternal  spoken  to  us  by  the  mouth  of 
His  prophet  Moses,  "See,  now,  that  I,  even  I,  am  He, 
and  there  is  no  god  with  Me."^  There  is  no  ground 
for  discussion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  declarations  of 
the  Almighty  delivered  to  us  by  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
*'I,  even  I,  am  the  Eternal;  and  beside  Me  there  is 
no  saviour"^;  "I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last; 
and  beside  Me  there  is  no  god"  *;  ''I  am  the  Eternal, 
and  there  is  none  else;  beside  Me  there  is  no  god"'; 
"I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else;  I  am  God,  and 
there  is  none  hke  Me."'  And  there  is  no  possibihty 
of  forming  a  wrong  conclusion  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  command  that  was  given  us  by  God  through  the 
prophet  Hosea,  "I  am  the  Eternal  thy  God  from  the 
land  of  Egypt;  and  thou  shalt  know  no  god  but  Me, 
and  there  is  no  saviour  beside  Me." '  All  these  and 
the  other  similar  declarations  of  the  Almighty  recorded 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  state  as  plainly  as  human 
language  can  be  made  to  express  the  sublime  truth, 
that  there  is  One  God,  the  Eternal,  and  that  beside 

'  Exod.  XX.  2,  3.         "^  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  '  Isaiah  xliii.  11. 

*  Isaiah  xHv.  6.     ^  Isaiah  xlv.  5.     ^  Ibid.,  xlvi.  9.    "'  Hosea  xiii.  4. 


220      A  JEWISH   REPLY    TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

Him  there  is  no  god,  and  no  saviour,  none  like  Him, 
and  no  one  else.  Statements  and  expressions  of  this 
nature  are  not  those  that  can  permit  us  to  believe, 
as  our  Christian  brethren  are  so  anxious  to  have  us 
beheve,  that,  associated  with  the  Eternal  in  the  God- 
head, there  are  two  other  gods  like  unto  Himself  in 
every  respect,  having  the  same  Di\ine  Nature  with 
Himself,  and  entitled,  equally  with  Himself,  to  the 
worship  He  has  commanded  us  to  give  to  none  but 
Himself.  And  to  every  kind  of  question  and  argument 
that  may  be  urged  by  our  Christian  brethren  in  support 
of  their  contention  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  reveal 
the  existence  of  a  pluraHty  of  gods,  and  that  they 
teach  the  doctrine  that  there  are  two  other  gods  united 
with  the  Eternal  in  the  Godhead,  and  that  there  is 
another  saviour,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  Jew  to  reply 
that  the  Eternal  has  declared  that  beside  Himself  there 
is  no  god,  no  saviour,  and  none  like  Him.  No  other 
answer  is  needed. 

Other  answers  may,  however,  be  given  to  the  Christian 
interpretation  of  those  passages  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
upon  which  our  Christian  friends  base  their  claim  that 
the  trinitarian  doctrine  of  their  religion  is  founded  upon 
the  word  and  teaching  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures;  and 
if  we  take  notice  of  some  of  those  other  answers,  it  is 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  your  attention 
the  pecuhar  ways  in  which  Christians  pervert  the 
word,  spirit  and  meaning  of  those  Scriptures,  and  of 
showing  you  how  weak  and  valueless  are  the  premises 
from  which  they  draw  the  most  weighty  of  conclusions. 
And  in  discussing  any  of  the  passages  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures   upon   which   our   Christian   brethren   rely 


LECTURE  221 

for  proof  of  the  truth  of  their  doctrine  of  an  association 
or  union  of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead,  we  shall  find 
that  they  study  those  Scriptures,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  learning  and  accepting  the  real  truth,  but  with  the 
sole  object  of  discovering  in  them  some  justification 
for  their  belief;  and  that  they  ignore  every  statement 
and  declaration  that  does  not  suit  them,  and  endeavor 
to  pervert  to-  their  purposes  every  passage  that  they 
think  may  be  made  to  help  them. 

Necessity  is  said  to  be  the  mother  of  invention;  and, 
driven  by  the  necessities  of  their  position,  our  Christian 
friends  have  made  some  very  interesting  discoveries. 
They  have,  for  instance,  discovered  that  the  Jews  of 
modern  times  know  nothing  about  their  Scriptures  and 
the  reHgion  of  their  ancestors;  that  Moses  taught  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinityship  of  God  to  the  children  of 
Israel;  that  the  Israelites  beheved  in  a  union  of  three 
gods  in  the  Godhead,  and  worshipped  three  divine  beings 
as  God  from  the  time  of  Moses  down  to  that  of  Christ, 
and  from  this  latter  period  down  to  about  the  tenth 
or  twelfth  century  of  the  Christian  era,  when,  under 
the  influence  of  their  Rabbis,  they  discarded  their  ances- 
tral faith,  because  it  was  also  the  religion  of  a  persecut- 
ing Christianity,  and  adopted  instead  the  doctrine  of  the 
absolute  Unity  of  God,  which  they  now  hold;  that, 
consequently,  modern.  Judaism  is  Rabbinism,  and  not 
Mosaism;  and  that  it  is  Christianity,  and  not  Judaism, 
that  is  to-day  the  true  representative  of  Mosaism.  These 
are  some  of  the  wonderful  discoveries  that  modern 
Christian  Evangelists  have  made;  but,  in  announcing 
them,  they  have  characteristically  failed  to  notice  and 
explain  many  things  that  are  inconsistent  with  and  deny 


222      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

the  truth  and  value  of  their  pretended  discoveries.  Thus, 
if  it  be  true  that  Moses  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ityship  of  God  to  the  people  of  Israel ;  if  it  be  true  that 
he  told  them  there  were  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
and  that  each  one  of  these  three  Divine  Beings  had  his 
own  individuaUty  and  was  distinguishable  from  the  other 
two,  then  these  Christian  Evangelists  should  explain  to 
us  how  it  came  to  pass  that  Moses  not  only  failed  to  set 
forth  the  doctrine  they  say  he  taught  us  in  words  that 
were  suitable  to  it,  but  used,  on  the  contrary,  language 
that  had  the  very  opposite  meaning.  And  if  it  be  true 
that  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  days  of  Moses  and 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  afterward,  for  more  than 
one-half  of  the  period  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
believed  in  the  union  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  three  gods  together  constituting  the  God- 
head, then  the  Christian  Evangelists  who  relate  these 
fables  to  us  should  also  tell  us  what  was  the  cause  of  all 
those  cruel  and  relentless  persecutions  of  the  Jews  by 
the  Christians  that  drove  the  former  to  abandon  the 
doctrine  they  are  thus  said  to  have  shared  with  the  latter; 
and  how  it  happened  that,  for  ten  centuries  or  more, 
Christianity  should  have  expended  all  the  fury  of  its 
hate  upon  the  people  of  Israel  for  believing  that  about 
the  nature  of  the  Deity  which,  for  the  greater  part  of 
another  ten  centuries,  it  handed  them  over  to  fire  and 
the  sword,  torture  and  the  stake  for  not  believing. 
The  fact  is,  that  there  is  not  a  statement  that  is  too 
extravagant,  nor  an  argument  that  is  too  unfounded 
for  Christian  Evangelists  to  make  or  advance,  if  thereby 
they  can  only  give  themselves  the  comfort  of  thinking 
that  in  some  way,  or  at  some  time,  the  Jewish  Scriptures 


LECTURE  223 

and  the  Jewish  people  have  given  sanction  to  the  trini- 
tarian  dogma  of  their  creed. 

The  whole  of  the  claim  made  by  Christian  Evangel- 
ists, that  modern  Judaism  is  Rabbinism,  and  not  Mosa- 
ism;  that  Christianity,  and  not  Judaism,  is  to-day  the 
true  representative  of  Mosaism;  that  Moses  taught  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinityship  of  God  to  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  that  the  latter  believed  in  a  union  of  three 
gods  in  the  Godhead,  and  worshipped  three  beings  as 
God  until  they  discarded  the  Mosaism  of  their  fathers 
for  the  Rabbinism  of  modern  times;  the  whole  of  this 
claim  rests  upon  nothing  more  substantial  and  upon 
nothing  else  than  the  interpretation  given  by  modern 
Christian  Evangelists  to  the  words  of  the  great  charge 
delivered  by  Moses  to  the  children  of  Israel.^  Christian 
Evangelists  contend  that  that  charge  should  be  ren- 
dered, "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  Gods,  the  Lord  is 
united,"  rather  than  in  the  usual  way,  "the  Lord  our 
God,  the  Lord  is  One."  They  found  their  argument 
upon  the  fact  that  the  expression  " Our  God"  is,  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  given  in  the  plural  form,  Elohenu;  and 
that  the  word  echad,  one,  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  to  express  a  figurative  and  not  an  absolute 
unity,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  verse,  "Therefore  doth  a 
man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  cleave  unto  his 
wife,  and  they  become,  basar  echad,  one  flesh.  "^  And 
because  the  name  of  God  is  mentioned  three  times  in 
the  passage,  Adoshem,  Elohenu,  Adoshem,  with  the 
word  echad  uniting,  as  they  express  it,  the  three  in  one, 
therefore  Christian  Evangelists  contend  that  there  is 
here  a  plain  indication  of  a  union  of  three  gods  in  the 

^  Deut.  vi.  4.  2  Qgn  ii.  24. 


224     A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Godhead.  Our  Christian  friends  treat  the  threefold 
repetition  of  the  name  of  God  as  though  it  were  the 
names  of  three  gods.  And  it  is  from  this  kind  of  an 
argument,  from  reasoning  of  this  nature,  and  from 
nothing  more  substantial,  that  learned  and  enlightened 
Christian  divines  of  the  twentieth  century  draw  all  those 
conclusions  that  were  just  now  mentioned  to  you,  and 
gravely  and  soberly  tell  us  that  Moses  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinityship  of  God  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  that  the  latter  believed  in  the  union  of  three  gods 
in  the  Godhead  until  they  abandoned  the  Mosaism  of 
their  fathers  for  the  Rabbinism  of  the  middle  ages! 
The  most  courteous  way  in  which  we  can  express  our 
estimation  of  the  truth  and  value  of  the  Christian  argu- 
ment is  by  saying  that  our  Christian  brethren  do  not 
give  us  any  opportunity  to  congratulate  them  upon  the 
strength  and  solidity  of  the  foundations  on  which  their 
religion  is  constructed. 

The  verse  now  under  consideration  furnishes  us  with 
a  notable  instance  of  the  inconsistency  that  has  always 
been  characteristic  of  our  Christian  friends  in  their 
treatment  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  has  always 
been  a  cause  of  complaint  to  them  that  we  Jews  will 
persist  in  interpreting  our  Scriptures  in  a  literal  way, 
and  in  giving  them  the  meaning  that  the  words  used 
naturally  imply,  and  the  appHcation  that  the  context 
plainly  indicates;  and  yet  they  themselves  take  in  their 
most  Uteral  sense  every  word  or  expression  that  they 
think  will  be  of  the  slightest  use  to  them;  while  to  verses 
or  sentences  that  do  not  suit  them  they  give  any  typical 
or  figurative  interpretation  that  they  consider  best  cal- 
culated to  serve  them;  but  without,  in  either  case,  pay- 


LECTURE  225 

ing  any  regard  to  the  meaning  and  application  of  the 
context,  or  to  the  dependence  of  any  given  word  or 
expression  upon  other  statements  that  may  govern  its 
meaning  or  restrict  its  apphcation.  Thus,  when  Moses 
declares  that  "  The  Eternal  our  God,  the  Eternal  is  One," 
Christian  EvangeHsts  find  the  words  "our  God"  ex- 
pressed in  the  Hebrew  text  in  the  plural  form  Elohenu, 
which  is  nothing  else  than  an  instance  of  the  use  of  that 
most  common  of  all  idioms,  the  plural  of  majesty;  and 
that  it  is  a  plural  of  majesty  is  proved  by  the  declara- 
tions made  by  the  Almighty  that  beside  Himself  there  is 
no  god,  none  Hke  Him,  and  no  one  else.  But,  because 
it  suits  the  purposes  of  our  Christian  friends  to  do  so, 
they  take  the  plural  word  Elohenu  in  a  strictly  literal 
way,  and  translate  it  ''our  Gods."  In  vain  does  the 
Eternal  declare  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no  God ;  in 
vain  do  Moses  and  the  other  prophets  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment reiterate  the  statement  that  besides  the  Eternal 
there  is  no  god;  the  plural  word  Elohenu  is  used,  and 
therefore  the  Christian  Evangelist  insists  that  it  cannot 
be  a  plural  of  majesty,  but  must  be  interpreted  in  its 
strictly  literal  sense,  and  must  mean  a  plurality  of  gods, 
and  be  intended  to  indicate  the  existence  of  other  gods 
beside  the  Eternal.  But  when  Moses  says  that  "the 
Eternal  is  echad,  One,"  then  the  Christian  Evangelist 
does  not  accept  the  word  echad  in  its  Hteral  sense  of  one, 
and  one  only,  for  that  interpretation  does  not  suit  him; 
and  so  he  regards  it  as  a  mere  figurative  expression, 
having  the  meaning  it  has  when  we  say  that  "husband 
and  wife  are  one,"  and  he  therefore  renders  the  verse, 
"The  Lord  our  gods,  the  Lord  is  united. "  In  this  way, 
and  because,  as  already  remarked,  our  Christian  friends 
15 


226     A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Study  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  for  the  purpose  only  of 
finding  in  them  evidence  of  some  kind  or  other  that  may 
be  made  to  appear  to  support  their  doctrines,  they 
twist  and  pervert  the  declaration  of  the  Unity  of  God 
made  by  Moses  into  an  acknowledgment  and  a  proof  of 
the  union  of  other  gods  with  the  Eternal.  And,  then, 
full  of  self-sanctifying  grace,  they  complacently  tell  us 
that  Christianity,  and  not  Judaism,  is  to-day  the  true 
representative  of  Mosaism. 

The  cardinal  number  one  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by 
the  word  echad;  but,  because  this  word  is  sometimes 
used  in  our  Scriptures  to  express  a  figurative  or  fictitious 
unity,  our  Christian  friends  draw  the  conclusion  that  it 
must  have  that  signification  when  employed  by  Moses 
to  express  the  Unity  of  the  Eternal ;  the  Christian  infer- 
ence being  that  the  word  echad  must  always  have,  and 
can  only  have,  the  meaning  of  a  figurative  or  compound 
unity.  We  will  apply  their  reasoning  to  the  analogous 
use  of  the  word  one  in  the  English  language,  and  we  will 
see  how  wTong  and  illogical  our  Christian  friends  are; 
although  it  may  be  deemed  unfair  on  our  part  to  meas- 
ure the  value  of  the  Christian  argument,  or,  indeed,  the 
value  of  any  Christian  argument,  by  the  standard  of 
logic  and  truth  and  common  sense;  for,  in  matters  of 
religion,  and  particularly  in  questions  affecting  the 
interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  logic  and  truth 
and  common  sense  are  qualities  whose  exercise  is  as 
carefully  eschewed  by  our  Christian  brethren  as  they 
could  be,  were  they  the  acknowledged  devices  of  their 
Evil  One. 

When  we  say,  in  English,  that  "A  man  shall  leave  his 
father  and  his  mother,  and   shall  cleave  unto  his  wife 


LECTURE  227 

and  they  shall  be  one  flesh,"  *  we  use  the  word  one  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  the  word  echad  is 
employed  in  the  same  passage  in  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
When  we  say  in  English  that  "All  the  children  of  Israel 
went  out,  and  the  congregation  was  assembled  together 
as  one  man"^  that  "All  the  people  arose  as  one  man"^; 
or  that  "All  the  men  of  Israel  were  gathered  against  the 
city,  knit  together  as  one  man"^;  in  each  of  these  cases 
we  use  the  English  word  one  with  exactly  the  same 
meaning  with  which  the  word  echad  is  employed  in  the 
corresponding  verses  in  the  Hebrew  Bible;  and  if,  in 
those  passages,  when  rendered  in  Hebrew,  the  word 
echad  represents  a  figurative  or  compound  unity,  then 
does  the  word  one  also  represent  a  compound  or  figura- 
tive unity  when  the  same  sentences  are  expressed  in  the 
English  language.  The  analogy  between  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew  word  echad  and  that  of  the  English  word  one 
is  perfect  and  complete.  But,  because  the  EngHsh  word 
one  may  be  thus  used  to  express  a  figurative  or  com- 
pound unity,  we  would  have  a  very  poor  opinion  of  the 
intelligence  of  the  man  who  should  from  thence  try  to 
argue  that  the  English  word  one  must  always  have  that 
application,  and  must  always  be  taken  to  represent  a 
compound  or  fictitious  unity,  and  that  it  can  never  have 
any  other  meaning;  that  the  words  "one  apple"  must 
mean  three  apples;  that  "one  house"  must  mean  three 
houses;  "one  man,"  three  men;  "one  angel,"  three 
angels;  and  "One  God,"  three  gods.  Yet  such  is  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  argument,  and  such  is  the  con- 
clusion that  Christian  Evangelists  would  have  us  come 

1  Gen.  ii.  24.  ^  Judges  xx.  i. 

s  Judges  XX.  8.  *  Ibid.,  II. 


228      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

to  with  regard  to  the  meaning  and  appHcation  of  the 
word  echad^  when  employed  by  Moses  to  express  the 
Unity  of  the  Eternal. 

Our  Christian  brethren  may  also  be  told  that  their 
version  of  the  passage  under  consideration  does  not 
agree  with  that  which  is  said  to  have  been  given  it 
by  Jesus;  and  that  the  latter  rendered  it  in  a  way 
that  has  the  same  literal  meaning  of  One  God,  and  of 
One  Being  only  who  is  God,  that  the  Jews  of  the 
present  day  attach  to  it;  a  circumstance  that  also 
conflicts  with  the  modern  Christian  pretension  that 
Moses  taught,  and  the  Jews  of  ancient  times  beheved 
in,  the  doctrine  of  a  union  of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead. 
For  it  is  related  in  the  New  Testament  that  when  one 
of  the  scribes  asked  Jesus,  "Which  is  the  first  com- 
mandment of  all?"  Jesus  answered  him,  "The  first 
of  all  the  commandments  is.  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  One  Lord."  And  the  scribe  said  unto 
him,  "Well,  Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth;  for  there 
is  One  God,  and  there  is  none  other  but  He."^  Our 
Christian  friends  can  refer  to  the  chapter  in  St.  Mark 
that  gives  this  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  the  scribe; 
and  if  they  can  construe  either  the  Greek  or  the  English 
versions  of  it  in  any  way  that  will  mean  "The  Lord 
our  Gods,  the  Lord  is  united,"  they  may  merit  credit 
for  their  zeal  and  their  ingenuity,  but  none  for  any 
more  commendable  quality. 

Another  answer  that  may  be  made  to  our  Christian 
friends  is  that  they  conveniently  forget  the  fact  that 
Moses  made  some  other  statements  to  the  children  of 
Israel  that  are  incompatible  with  the  modern  Chris- 

1  Mark  xii.  28,  29,  32. 


LECTURE  229 

tian  pretension  that  he  taught  them  the  doctrine  of  a 
union  of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead.  His  other  charges 
to  the  IsraeHtes,  ''Unto  thee  it  was  shown,  that  thou 
mightest  know,  that  the  Eternal  is  the  God;  there 
is  none  else  besides  Him, " ^  and  "Know  therefore  this 
day,  and  reflect  in  thy  heart,  that  the  Eternal  is  the 
God  in  the  heavens  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath ; 
there  is  none  else"^;  these  other  charges  are  abso- 
lute contradictions  and  flat  denials  of  the  Christian 
pretension  concerning  what  Moses  taught.  And  when 
Moses  addressed  his  parting  words  to  the  congregation 
of  Israel,  and  deHvered  to  them  his  inspired  song,  he 
said,  speaking  for  the  Eternal,  "See,  now,  that  I, 
even  I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god  with  Me."^  Far, 
then,  from  Moses  teaching  the  Israelites  that  there 
were  two  other  gods  united  with  the  Eternal  in  the 
Godhead,  he  told  them  that  the  Eternal  was  the  Only 
God,  that  there  were  no  gods  with  Him,  and  that 
there  was  no  one  else.  The  Christian  claim  that 
Moses  taught  us  Jews  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinityship 
of  God  is  as  utterly  devoid  of  truth  as  is  their  state- 
ment that  we  believed  in  and  worshipped  a  union  of 
three  gods  in  the  Godhead  until  we  abandoned  the 
Mosaism  of  our  fathers  for  the  Rabbinism  of  the 
middle  ages. 

And  if  our  Christian  friends  should  be  still  unsatis- 
fied, and  require  a  little  more  comfort,  we  may  further 
remind  them  that  they  also  ignore  the  fact  that  the 
Eternal  has  declared  that  beside  Himself  there  is 
no  god,  none  like  Him,  and  no  one  else;  so  that, 
whatever  may  be  the  connection  in  which  the  word 

^  Deut.  iv.  35.  2  x})id.^  39.  s  Ibid.,  xxxii,  39. 


230      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

echad  may  be  used  in  other  passages  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  it  cannot,  in  the  injunction  given  by  Moses 
to  the  children  of  Israel,  have  any  other  meaning  than 
that  the  Eternal  is  literally  and  truly  One^  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others.  Whatever  our  Christian 
friends  may  say  or  think,  we  cannot,  by  any  kind  of  an 
argument,  not  even  by  this  one  that  the  vivid  imagina- 
tions of  modern  Christian  Evangelists  have  evolved 
out  of  the  most  formal  and  emphatic  declarations  to 
the  contrary,  force  upon  the  Eternal  an  association  or 
union  with  other  gods,  when  He  declares  that  beside 
Himself  there  is  no  god,  none  like  Him,  and  none  else. 
These  are  some  of  the  answers  that  may  be  given 
to  those  Christian  Evangelists  who,  for  want  of  better 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  their  trinitarian  doctrine, 
try  to  make  us  believe  that  the  declarations  of  the 
Unity  of  God  made  by  Moses  were  intended  by  him 
to  be  an  acknowledgment  of  the  union  of  two  other 
gods  with  the  Eternal;  and  that  Moses  made  use  of 
words  that  had  the  plainest  of  meanings  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enunciating  or  suggesting  so  very  different  and 
opposite  a  doctrine  as  that  which  they  are  so  anxious 
to  foist  upon  him.  If  such  be  the  Hght  in  which  our 
Christian  friends  would  have  us  Jews  regard  our  Script- 
ures,— if  they  would  have  us  think  and  beheve  that 
our  Scriptures  not  only  do  not  mean  what  they  purport 
to  say,  but  that  they  mean  the  very  contrary  to  what 
they  do  say, — then  we  are  entitled  to  tell  them  that 
it  would  be  far  more  honest  and  more  respectable  on 
the  part  of  any  person  who  might  entertain  that  opin- 
ion of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  to  say  openly  that  they 
are  not  a  safe  guide,  that  they  are  not  reliable,  not 


LECTURE  231 

worthy  of  credence,  and  not  to  be  accepted  as  divinely 
inspired,  rather  than  to  profess  to  believe  in  their 
inspiration,  and  then  exert  one's  utmost  ingenuity  in 
twisting  and  perverting  the  plainest  of  statements 
they  may  contain  to  a  meaning  the  very  opposite  to 
their  natural  and  obvious  import.  Not  even  the 
necessities  of  Christianity  can  justify  that  kind  of 
work. 

In  the  opinion  of  our  Christian  friends,  one  of  the 
most  direct  and  convincing  proofs  of  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
is  that  which  they  say  is  given  in  the  verse  in  Isaiah 
which  they  cite  as  foretelhng  his  miraculous  birth.* 
In  that  verse  the  prophet  Isaiah  tells  Achaz,  king  of 
Judah,  that,  as  a  sign  from  the  Almighty,  a  certain 
young  woman  would  become  the  mother  of  a  son, 
and  would  call  his  name  Immanuel.  As  the  mother 
of  Jesus  did  not  call  his  name  Immanuel,  which  means 
"  God  with  us,"  and  as  he  was  never  called  by  that  name, 
it  does  not  suit  our  Christian  friends  to  interpret  that 
part  of  the  verse  in  a  literal  way;  they  therefore  pretend 
that  the  word  Immanuel  should  not  be  regarded  as  a 
proper  name,  but  only  as  descriptive  of  the  nature  or 
character  of  the  child  to  be  born;  and  that  Jesus  was 
Immanuel,  because  he  was  *'God  with  us."  We 
will  pass  over  the  question  of  the  child's  name,  although 
it  is  as  much  an  essential  part  of  the  sign  as  is  his 
birth;  and  we  will  only  consider  the  verse  from  the  point 
of  view  of  its  appHcabihty  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

The  verse  in  question  is  susceptible  of  two  inter- 
pretations,  each  of  which  depends  on   the  different 

^  Isaiah  vii.  14. 


232     A  JEWISH   REPLY  TO   CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISTS 

meaning  that  may  be  given  to  the  Hebrew  word 
Ngalmah,  which  is  the  term  applied  to  the  mother  of 
the  child.  That  word  means  a  young  woman;  and 
it  is  a  term  that  can  be  applied  to  any  young  woman, 
whether  married  or  unmarried;  and,  according  to 
the  different  interpretation  and  application  that  may 
be  given  to  the  word,  the  birth  of  the  child  would  be 
either  a  miraculous  event  or  an  ordinary  one.  Our 
Christian  brethren  take  the  view  that  it  must  have  been 
the  intention  of  the  prophet  to  predict  a  miraculous 
birth,  because  they  claim  that  if  it  were  otherwise, 
then  the  birth  of  the  child  could  not  be  a  sign.  In 
other  words,  our  Christian  friends  claim  that  a  sign 
must  be  a  miracle,  and  that  only  a  miracle  can  be  a 
sign ;  and  they  say  that  the  allusion  was  to  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  which  they  claim  to  have  been  a  miraculous 
one. 

But  oiir  Christian  brethren  are  in  error  in  assuming 
that  a  sign  must  necessarily  be  a  miracle,  or  something 
of  a  miraculous  character;  for  the  most  ordinary  event, 
or  any  specified  succession  of  ordinary  events,  may  be 
in  every  respect  a  sign,  that  is,  an  evidence  or  assurance 
of  the  happening  of  a  certain  other  event.  Thus,  when 
Abraham's  servant  sought  for  a  sign  from  the  Almighty, 
by  which  he  might  be  guided  in  his  selection  of  a  wife 
for  Isaac,  he  did  not  ask  for  a  miracle  as  a  sign,  but, 
simply,  that  the  maiden  who  was  destined  to  be  Isaac's 
wife  should,  when  he  would  ask  her  for  a  drink  of 
water,  not  only  give  him  a  drink,  but  also  offer  to  draw 
water  for  his  camels.^  Again,  when  Gideon  asked 
for  a  sign  from  the  Lord,  by  which  he  might  know 

*  Gen.  xxiv.  12-20,  42-46. 


LECTURE  233 

that  he  would  succeed  in  battle  against  the  Midianites 
and  their  allies,  and  free  Israel  from  their  yoke,  he 
also  did  not  ask  for  anything  miraculous  as  a  sign, 
but,  simply,  that  the  dew  should  fall  upon  the  fleece 
of  wool,  and  not  upon  the  ground  around  it;  and,  as 
a  second  or  confirmatory  sign,  that  the  fleece  should 
remain  dry,  while  the  ground  around  it  should  become 
wet  with  dew.* 

When  we  consider  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  sign  was  given,  we  find  that  our  Christian  brethren 
give  the  sign  a  meaning  and  an  application  that  make 
it  ridiculous.  For  it  is  related  in  Isaiah,  in  the  same 
chapter  in  which  the  birth  of  the  child  is  prophesied, 
that  the  kings  of  Israel  and  of  Syria  had  allied  them- 
selves against  Achaz,  king  of  Judah,  and  were  march- 
ing against  Jerusalem.  When  the  news  of  their 
advance  was  told  to  Achaz,  "his  heart  trembled, 
with  the  heart  of  his  people,  as  the  trees  of  the  forest 
are  shaken  before  the  wind."  Then  the  Almighty 
sent  the  prophet  Isaiah  to  Achaz,  to  comfort  and 
encourage  him,  and  to  assure  him  that  his  enemies 
would  not  succeed  in  their  designs  against  him.  And 
in  order  to  give  him  more  confidence,  the  Almighty, 
through  the  prophet,  said  to  Achaz,  "Ask  thee  a  sign 
from  the  Eternal  thy  God;  ask  it  in  the  depth  or  high 
up  above."  But  Achaz  said,  "I  will  not  ask;  and  I 
will  not  tempt  the  Eternal."  Upon  which  the  prophet 
continued,  "Therefore  the  Lord  Himself  will  give  you 
a  sign:  Behold,  this  young  woman,  Hangabnah 
(indicating  her),  will  become  the  mother  of  a  son,  and 
shall   call   his   name   Immanuel.     Cream   and   honey 

'  Judges  vi.  36-40. 


234     A  JEWISH    REPLY   TO   CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

shall  he  eat,  so  soon  as  he  knoweth  to  refuse  the  evil, 
and  to  choose  the  good.  For  before  yet  the  child 
shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil,  and  to  choose  the  good, 
the  land  shall  be  forsaken  of  the  kings  of  whom  thou 
feelest  dread."  ^ 

We  have  here  a  perfectly  plain,  simple,  intelligible, 
and  well-connected  account  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  sign  was  given.  It  was  a  sign  offered 
by  God  to  Achaz;  and  the  birth  of  a  male  child,  born 
of  the  young  woman  who  was  then  designated,  and 
his  receiving  from  his  mother  the  name  of  Immanuel, 
were  to  be  an  assurance  to  Achaz  that,  before  the  child 
in  question  would  be  old  enough  to  distinguish  what 
was  pleasant  from  what  was  unpleasant  to  the  taste, 
he  and  his  country  would  be  delivered  from  the  for- 
midable and  dreaded  enemies  who  were  then  threat- 
ening them.  And  it  is  perfectly  immaterial  to  the 
right  and  intelligent  understanding  of  the  sign  whether 
the  young  woman  selected  by  the  prophet,  and  pointed 
out  by  him  to  Achaz,  were  already  married  or  not; 
the  only  difference  being  that,  in  the  latter  case,  her 
selection  would  also  imply  that  she  would  at  once  or 
in  a  short  time  contract  marriage.  But,  from  what 
is  said  by  Isaiah  in  the  next  chapter,  ^  it  is  understood 
that  the  young  woman  pointed  out  by  him  was  his 
own  wife. 

The  sign  thus  given  to  Achaz  would  not  have  been  a 
sign  or  token  to  him  if  the  prophet  had  told  him  in  vague 
terms  that  a  young  woman,  that  is,  some  young  woman, 
without  specifying  any  one  in  particular,  would  give 
birth  to  a  son.     But  the  statement  that  one  particular 

^  Isaiah  \ii.  1-16.  ^  Ibid.,  viii.  18. 


LECTURE  235 

young  woman,  pointed  out  by  the  prophet,  would 
become  the  mother  of  a  son  was  a  proper  kind  of  a  sign 
to  give  to  Achaz,  for  it  was  the  prediction  of  an  event, 
the  happening  of  which  could  only  be  positively  known 
to  a  person  divinely  inspired.  Moreover,  in  order  that 
the  birth  of  a  son  to  the  particular  young  woman  thus 
designated  by  the  prophet  should  be  a  sign  to  Achaz, 
and  give  him  that  confidence  in  his  ability  to  overcome 
his  enemies  which  it  was  intended  to  impart  to  him, 
it  was  necessary  that  the  promised  event  should  not  only 
be  accompHshed  during  his  lifetime,  but  also  that  it 
should  be  fulfilled  as  soon  as  it  was  possible  to  bring  it 
to  pass.  For  the  danger  threatening  Achaz  was  an 
imminent  one;  he  and  his  people  were  panic-stricken; 
and,  the  sign  having  been  given,  any  delay  in  its  accom- 
plishment beyond  the  time  when  it  could  have  been 
fulfilled  would  not  only  have  been  no  encouragement 
to  Achaz,  but  a  positive  disheartening  to  him  and  his 
subjects. 

All  these  things  are  plain  and  easily  understood; 
what  then  shall  we  say  of  the  Christian  interpretation 
of  the  sign  thus  given  to  Achaz,  which  finds  its  fulfil- 
ment in  the  birth  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, — an  event  that 
did  not  take  place  until  600  years  or  more  after  the  death 
of  Achaz?  What  a  travesty,  what  a  mockery,  of  the 
Word  of  God!  Because  our  Christian  friends  have 
adopted  the  belief  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  a  miracu- 
lous one,  and  therefore  want  to  find  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  some  justification  for  that  belief;  and  because 
they  have  here  a  verse  that  they  think  will  suit  their 
purpose,  they  claim  that  the  sign  given  to  Achaz  must 
be  interpreted  as  prophesying  a  miraculous  birth;   an^l 


236      A  JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

that  the  allusion  must  have  been  to  the  of  Jesus. 
They  ask  us  to  believe  that  Isiah  offered  to  Achaz,  as 
a  sure  and  positive  token  by  which  the  latter  might 
know  that  he  world  overcome  his  enemies,  the  predic- 
tion that,  600  years  after  his  death,  a  child  would  be 
born;  and  that  the  prophet,  having  in  view  this  birth 
of  a  child  more  than  600  years  after  the  death  of  Achaz, 
deemed  it  necessary  to  enter  into  the  further  assurance 
that  before  the  child  in  question  would  be  old  enough 
to  distinguish  what  was  pleasant  from  what  was  un- 
pleasant to  the  taste,  Achaz  would  be  delivered  from 
his  enemies!  A  sign  is  something  which  foreshows; 
it  is  something  that  is  an  evidence  and  an  assurance  that 
a  certain  event  or  result  will  follow;  and  it  must  pre- 
cede the  result  or  event  that  is  to  follow,  just  as  a  cause 
precedes  the  effect;  but  our  Christian  friends  think 
nothing  of  reversing  this  natural  order  of  things.  They 
think  nothing  of  making  the  fulfilment  of  the  sign  given 
to  Achaz  follow  by  more  than  600  years  that  defeat  of 
his  enemies  which  it  was  intended  to  foreshow;  and 
they  ask  us  to  beheve  that  an  event  that  was  to  happen 
600  years  after  the  death  of  Achaz  could  have  been  a 
token  to  him  that  success  would  attend  him  in  his  strug- 
gle with  the  kings  of  Israel  and  of  Syria.  Again  we 
must  say  that  we  cannot  congratulate  our  Christian 
brethren  upon  their  method  of  interpreting  our  Script- 
ures, nor  upon  the  soundness  of  the  arguments  they 
offer  for  our  consideration. 

The  time  during  which  I  may  claim  your  attention 
this  evening  will  not  permit  me  to  notice  any  other  of  the 
passages  in  our  Scriptures  by  which  our  Christian  friends 
try  to  prove  the  union  of  two  other  gods  with  the  Eternal, 


LECTURE  237 

and  the  existence  of  another  saviour  than  the  Eternal 
alone;  but  the  same  peculiarities  that  mark  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  two  verses  we  have  been  considering 
also  characterize  their  rendering  of  every  other  passage 
by  which  they  endeavor  to  establish  the  truth  of  the 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  their  religion.  From  any 
one  of  their  arguments  you  can  judge  the  nature  of  all 
the  others;  and  there  is  not  one  case  in  which  the 
Christian  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  not  as 
wrong  and  unfounded,  and  not  as  devoid  of  truth  and 
reason,  as  are  their  interpretations  and  applications  of 
the  two  verses  we  have  been  discussing.  Nor  is  this 
to  be  wondered  at ;  for  the  sole  object  of  our  Christian 
friends  is  to  prove  that  to  be  true  which  the  Almighty 
has  declared  to  be  false ;  to  foist  upon  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures doctrines  that  they  repudiate;  and  to  make  those 
Scriptures  appear  to  disclose  the  existence  of  other  gods 
and  another  saviour  than  the  Eternal  alone,  when  every 
writer  of  those  Scriptures  afhrms  and  reaffirms  the 
glorious  truth  that  the  Eternal  is  the  Only  God  and  the 
Only  Saviour,  and  that  beside  Him  there  is  no  god,  and 
no  saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  none  else. 

To  conclude:  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament  is 
not  that  of  the  Old ;  nor  is  it  a  development  in  any  higher 
and  more  spiritual  form  of  the  principles  and  teachings 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  New  Testament,  with  its 
pagan  doctrines  of  a  union  of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead, 
and  of  a  Fourth  Being,  or  Evil  Spirit,  who  is  antagonistic 
to  the  three  gods,  and  is  possessed  of  power  almost  equal 
to  theirs,  and  to  propitiate  whom  one  of  the  three  gods 
v/as  offered  as  a  sacrifice,  is  as  far  below  the  sublimity 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  with  their  revelation  of  One 


238      A   JEWISH   REPLY   TO    CHRISTIAN   EVANGELISTS 

Supreme  Being,  by  whose  command  all  other  beings 
have  come  into  existence,  to  whose  will  and  purposes  all 
other  beings  are  subservient,  and  for  the  manifestation 
of  whose  glory  everything  in  heaven  and  on  earth  has 
been  created,  as  the  imaginations  of  man  and  the 
limited  intelligence  and  imperfect  works  of  man  are 
beneath  the  infinite  wisdom  and  v/onderful  creations 
of  the  Lord  of  the  universe. 

The  selection  of  our  people  by  the  Aljuighty  to  be 
unto  Him  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation  ^  was 
not  made  in  order  that  we  Jews  should  disbelieve  His 
declarations  that  beside  Himself  there  is  no  god,  and  no 
saviour,  none  like  Him,  and  none  else,  and  give  credit 
to  the  Christian  who  tells  us  that  there  are  two  other 
gods  united  with  the  Eternal  in  the  Godhead,  and  that 
there  is  another  saviour.  It  was  not  shown  unto  us 
Israelites,  that  we  might  know,  that  the  Eternal  is  the 
God,  there  is  none  else  besides  Him,^  in  order  that  we 
might  accept  as  our  spiritual  guide  and  teacher  the 
Christian  who  tells  us  that  Moses  taught  us  Jews  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinityship  of  God,  and  that  we  beheved 
in  and  worshipped  a  union  of  three  gods  in  the  Godhead 
until  we  abandoned  the  Mosaism  of  our  fathers  for  the 
Rabbinism  of  the  middle  ages !  It  was  not  in  order  that 
we  Jews  should  accept  the  statements  and  arguments  of 
people  who  tell  us,  one  minute,  that  they  beheve  in  only 
One  God,  and  try,  the  next  minute,  to  prove  that  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  reveal  the  existence  of  a  plurality  of 
gods ;  who  profess  that  they  believe  in  the  inspiration  of 
those  Scriptures,  and  then  labor  to  pervert  them  in  away 
that  makes  them  ridiculous;  who  tell  us  that  the  birth 

1  Exod.  xix.  6.  2  Deut.  iv.  35. 


LECTURE  239 

of  a  child,  600  years  after  the  death  of  a  man,  can  be  a 
sign  and  a  token  to  that  man  that  he  will  overcome  the 
dangers  that  threaten  him;  it  was  not  for  any  of  these 
purposes  that  out  of  the  heavens  the  Almighty  caused 
us  to  hear  His  voice,  and  upon  the  earth  to  see  His  great 
fire,  and  to  hear  His  words  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire.^ 
It  was  not  in  order  that  we  Jews  should  believe  the 
Christian,  any  more  than  it  was  that  we  should  give 
credence  to  the  Egyptian  or  the  Canaanite,  the  Assyrian 
or  the  Persian,  the  Greek  or  the  Roman,  the  Brahmin 
or  the  Buddhist,  that  the  Lord  our  God  selected  us  as 
His  witnesses,  and  made  us  the  custodians  of  His  law; 
but  in  order  that  we  might  believe  Him,  and  Him  alone. 
"Ye  are  My  witnesses,  saith  the  Eternal,  and  My  ser- 
vant whom  I  have  chosen,  in  order  that  ye  may  know 
and  believe  Me,  and  understand  that  I  am  He;  before 
Me  there  was  no  god  formed,  and  after  Me  there  will  be 
none.  I,  even  I,  am  the  Eternal;  and  beside  Me  there 
is  no  saviour."^ 

^  Deut.  iv.  36.  ^  Isaiah  xliii.  10,  11. 


Date  Due 

-5"^■^: 

f 

\itg0rvti 

it 

^ 

